Gay Rights

He is not an intolerant conservative. If he is, then eveny honest pastor, and God are intolerant. The is no way, through Hebrew, Greek, or English, to dismiss, or make favorable, the issue of homosexuality in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures. Attacking Olsteen is pointless. Heaven forbid that he should compromise his message to appease the madding crowd. It is good and appropriate that he invites homosexuals to his Church. We owe one another LOVE. not a conciliatory attitude toward sin. A PHD theologian friend of mine gets around the issue by reading only the "red" letters. That's a joke. He, like so many others, is deceiving himself. 

The is no way, through Hebrew, Greek, or English, to dismiss, or make favorable, the issue of cotton-poly bends in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures.

The is no way, through Hebrew, Greek, or English, to dismiss, or make favorable, the issue of bacon cheeseburgers in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures.

The is no way, through Hebrew, Greek, or English, to dismiss, or make favorable, the issue of shaving your beard in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures.

And yet, somehow Christians all over the world seem to have "compromised their message" to the point that these things don't even raise an eyebrow. Why should homosexuality be any different?

I agree that people of the Judeo-Christian have decided to ignore certain commandments in what is supposed to be the one true word of God. 

Where this really gets my undies in a bunch is the fact that a lot of fundimentalists preach that the Bible must be taken literally. Therefore, we should follow the biblical laws. These people also believe that the so-called word of their God trumps man's law. This gives them licence to to try to force all of us to obey their Biblical laws. They even try to codify it into our law. Hence, homosexuals are not allowed to marry.

These people should be allowed to believe what they want to believe. Where freedom of religion must end at is at the point where it interferes with somebody's civil rights. You may believe your God's law trumps man's law, but I don't believe in your God and I don't acknowledge his laws and commandments. There are some things we can agree on--murder is bad; However, I do not share all of your morals or the same view of our Creator.

It is not important that these people like you; they are entitled to their belief and opinion. They need to just learn that those who are different have a right to the same freedoms in our country. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..." are fundimental rights in our Constitution. These should be available for all, not just a bunch of narrow-minded ffundamentalist Christians.

The reason fundamentalists want to prevent gay "marriage" is that it changes the definition of marriage. If It isn't "one man and one woman" then it could be anything! If I want to marry my car which makes me happy, who's to stop me? Would you prevent someone from marrying a child? Do you consider this a violation of their pursuit of happiness?

@Dante -- What part of CONSENTING ADULTS do you (and the fundies) fail to understand? That means NO, there WON'T be man-dog "marriages", there WON'T be adult-child "marriages".

Give them some slack Shawna their literacy rate is not very high because it has to first pass through a filter of religious superiority.

Can comments like the one Dante made be prohibited? Just wondering.

This entire conversation has been a wallbanger*

* http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WallBanger

LOL Shawna. Are you sure? Because it could be Fridge Brilliance.*  :)

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FridgeBrilliance

And 60 years ago the people never would have even considered the "marriage" of anything except a man and woman. How quickly did that change? Mark my words, pretty soon marrying anything and everything will be considered the norm. And where did this "their literacy rate is not very high because it has to first pass through a filter of religious superiority." come from? I don't know where you get your information, but you could not be more wrong.

And 60 years ago the people never would have even considered the "marriage" of anything except a man and woman. How quickly did that change? Mark my words, pretty soon marrying anything and everything will be considered the norm. And where did this "their literacy rate is not very high because it has to first pass through a filter of religious superiority." come from? I don't know where you get your information, but you could not be more wrong.

And 42 years ago people in this country were not permitted to even consider "marriage" as anything except two people of the same race (see Loving v. Virginia 1967). You religious supremicists have to stop insisting that the things you say are true just because you say so. You could not be more wrong if you believe the concept of "marriage" is a monolithic constant that still remains the same as it was thousands of years ago. Just because you religious supremicists repeat this over and over, your repeating lies do not make them into truth. Read history and you will find that marriage, until recently, was a Property Arrangement more than anything else: with women becoming the property of men. Still is in many other cultures. We started down the slippery slope when we began to allow wives to work outside the nome, to own their own property, to vote, to have a brain and lives of their own. We changed the meaning of the word "marriage" when we stopped letting it be a cover for the legal rape, abuse and murder of women by the men they were married to. Remember when being married meant "love, honor AND OBEY?" Husbands were not the ones who pledged to obey. And they really did rape, abuse and kill their wives with impunity. It was within the meaning and protection of the word, "marriage" that they could do this. Until quite recently and even still in some places, marriage means male ownership and dominance of women as property. Think of this when you talk about "changing the meaning of marriage." It CAN be done, it HAS been done, it MUST be done and it WILL be done to include same-sex couples. You and your fellow religious supremicists cannot stop it from happening any more than your predecessors - the white supremicists - were able to keep interracial marriages from happening. 

Indeed mr. faigle and even the christian bible endorsed such barbarianism...

Along with forcing women to marry their rapists, polygamy and legalised adultry within marriage. (Through the allowing of men to have mistresses/female slaves that they could have sex with...While married) 

Yeahhhhhh marriage hasnt changed in a looooong time...

There were and are times in history when people (and that means everyone not just "religious supremists") had it wrong. However, what we are talking about here is the "marriage" of same sex. Us "white supremists" believe in the Bible as the inspired word of God and according to Leviticus 18:22 "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." God obviously did not design us to be together like that.  This doesn't mean that fornication (sex before marriage) with a woman is right either. And by the way this nation was founded on Judeo-Christian ethics. If the founding father's knew what was happening today they would be appalled. And if gay marriage is Constitutional why isn't recognized as such in our founding documents? And even if they screwed up on the same race marriage thing, why should the whole definition of marriage be changed, (one man and one woman not some property we own, but a partnership) after all, it was still a man and woman not a man and man. 

Dante -- the Constitution of the United States also says that Blacks count as 4/5 of a person. Do you support that?

As a Christian minister who is proud that our Baptist forbearers ensured that there would be no established state religion, I have to point out that Christianity is not mentioned in the Constitution and several of the founders were Deists which certainly does not fit my understanding of Judaism or Christianity.

Dante, do you eat shellfish? Leviticus uses the same word to prohibit eating shellfish as is used in chapter 18:22. Do you allow women to speak in your congregation? Scripture has to be understood in the context in which it was written. This has all been well articulated in the earlier discussions on this page.

I don’t see Scripture as an unchanging entity, but as the living Word, most clearly revealed to us through Jesus.

Re-read the stories of Jonathan and David and you'll see that same gender sexual/romantic relationships are mentioned positively in the Bible.

But setting all of this aside, we're talking about CIVIL rights. No churches are forced to officiate same gender marriages in the five states that do currently allow them.

Just like the name of this website, change is coming. Every year, our country moves closer and closer to full equality for all people.

You can rail against it and twist Christianity to support your position, but you're losing ground as each day passes.

Thanks be to God!

Mr. alucard...

Our country that is the united states of america WASNT founded on any religious beliefs.

And a variant of sexual orientation isnt justification for denying my fellow americans their equal rights.

Now...Why dont you go back to playing castlvainia on whatever nintendo game system your using.

I agree, Thomas, but please don't go trashing a good (and often challenging) series!

Sorry miss burt...I'll try harder to behave myself. :/

Mmmn, yanno, it's been twenty years and I -still- haven't finished the first few games in the series. I think it's time for some hardcore button-mashing, here.

"Dante -- the Constitution of the United States also says that Blacks count as 4/5 of a person. Do you support that?"

What you are talking about is the 3/5 Compromise, and you are taking it out of context. This was a compromise between the north and the south. The south wanted slaves to be counted as a full person, so that they would be able to have more representatives. The north did not want a slave to count as aperson, only because they did not want to allow the south to prosper from slavery.

But that aside, you are not sticking to the discussion. This was not about what I do or don't support in the Constitution. It is a matter of whether or not gay marriage is constitutional.

And to the shellfish...although we are under a new covenant under Christ today the definition of marriage has remained consistent throughout the entire Word of God.

 "Re-read the stories of Jonathan and David and you'll see that same gender sexual/romantic relationships are mentioned positively in the Bible."

Why would God annoint someone King of Israel who practices what He calls an abomination? The "relationship" you are talking about between David and Jonathan was NOT romantic or sexual in any way shape or form. Have you never heard of agape love? It basically means brotherly love. David called Johnathan his brother and you cannot name a single verse in the Bible that would say otherwise. 

"You can rail against it and twist Christianity to support your position, but you're losing ground as each day passes."

"I don’t see Scripture as an unchanging entity, but as the living Word, most clearly revealed to us through Jesus." And you say I'm twisting Christianity to support my position? How about you who said that you don't see the Bible as God's unchanging Word, but a "living Word" with which you actually mean that it changes with the people around it. Now if God's Word is perfect then why does it need to change with the people around it?  

LOL comparing differing versions of christianity is what mike is doing by showing the other side. You go to sights like www.religioustolerance.org and you will find that those who actually have doctorates in theology and Hebrew literature as well as culture disagree about what people say the bible reads on homosexuality. You can also find more infor on www.soulforce.org as well.

Outside of that, if you ask me, when you compare religious you are engaging in an eternal and asinine pissing contest that does no good. Religions are all the same, believing in what can never be. When we as humans finally mentally evolve hopefully we can look past the three davidic dogmas as we do now on the other grades of mythology that exist in our history. Then at least we will know that there will be one less thing bigots could try to use to back up their vitrolic words with destructive actions.

how is it that we as a society have began to address people by their sexual  orientation-does the bible address sexual issues-fornication(any person having sex outside of marriage is wrong) adultery (any heterosexual person having sex with someone that is not their spouse is wrong) homsexuality is not the only sexual practice that the bible condemns

however you are separating a behavior with a person when the two are linked, one in the same. Homosexual people engage in "homosexual acts" because they are homosexual? Yah? -nods- Yah.

Your idea of what sexual orientation is like seperating african american people into what segreationist did back in the fifties: "Negros and Negro behaviors."

Sexual orientation, homosexual, bisexual and heterosexual, are not simply sex acts; they are the fiber of peoples being. There is far more to sexual orientation than sex. It is time people start realizing this.

Here is a family. Yes they are a real family.

http://www.youtube.com/user/depfox#p/u/5/stN9akEZz6k

http://www.youtube.com/user/depfox#p/u/6/HW__kkEj_iU

The bias against LBGT people based on biblical teaching is not new. Those who seriously believe in biblical lies will always have something to say about homosexuality and anything else they believe goes against biblical law.

I am very much for equal rights for everyone. No more, no less. But when you start changing the rules according to what is supposedly the inviolate word of God, you invalidate the book's/religion’s teachings.

The problem is not with homosexuality; the problem is with revealed religion. If the religion persecutes you and your group, don’t follow that religion. You need to find one that is compatible with you and your beliefs. I am a Deist and we don’t have anything that condemns homosexuality. I think that most of us see homosexuality as a natural variation in our species. Perhaps there’s an evolutionary reason for homosexuality. Hating people because they are homosexual is like hating the sky because it is blue.

If we interpret Scripture in the context in which it was written, I believe that we do so knowing that the word “homosexuality” did not even exist in Paul’s day and that he had no concept or understanding of, and was not referring to, committed long term monogamous same gender relationships.

Certainly Paul was, as you point out, a Pharisee. And it was to the Pharisees (and all of us) that Jesus was speaking when He warned about relying on our hermeneutic for understanding the law:

“You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang ALL the law and the prophets.”

This is my hermeneutic, as Jesus said, “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

I believe that the problem with relying on our understanding as our hermeneutic is that, as Paul says in I Corinthians 13:12, “For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known.”

I don’t see Scripture as an unchanging entity, but as the living Word, most clearly revealed to us through Jesus.

When we through our hermeneutic try to limit Scripture to an unchanging understanding, we take away the Bible’s divinity, which knows no limits.

Perhaps the quote that “the Bible is a field guide which was never intended to replace the field” is appropriate here, because as Jesus and Paul reveal, love, not knowledge, is our lens.

Mark I whole heartily agree with you, however, reason and logic do not exist when it comes to religiosity. I too have called into question my brothers and sisters beliefs, and you know what I have found? I found that Religion does change, and although it is evil, it becomes less evil after each evil campaign that fails. Pretty soon it will be neutral. But I doubt the davidic dogmas could ever be good. There is too much destruction in those text, and they do out number the contradicting "be good" passages. The world would be a far better place if we placed the davidic dogams where they rightfully belong and that is in the annexes of mythology next to Greek mythology, Nordic mythology, and Egyptian mythology.

This is great, and you ended by saying what I was about to say, and that is that Pastor Osteen is NOT one of God's most prized possessions.

I said in an earlier post that my parents were very devout Catholics, but I do not consider myself to be a Christian. What I have learned from my parents is something that all religious dogma should have at the top of their list, and that is: RESPECT ALL LIFE, DO NOT JUDGE, BE GOOD TO YOURSELF AND BE GOOD TO OTHERS, DO NOT SEEK FORTUNE OR FAME, BUT SEEK INSTEAD IN BECOMING A BETTER PERSON, ALWAYS. (My parents are deceased, but they have left a beautiful message to me and my siblings on how to live).

Dear Friar,

How in the world does your discussion of Galileo's dispute with the church of the 17th century have anything to do with this discussion? Talk about a straw man! As far as your assertion that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality:

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

It is listed right there as one of the exclusions to inheriting the kingdom of God.

Hey shawn, that passage has been translated many different times from the original text, the conversion from its original text to say the words "homosexual" are actually as frequent as 50 years ago. Here is what the original passage once said before it was retranslated to disenfranchise gay men.

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." (Emphasis ours)

effeminate. In the English language, this covers a wide range of male behavior such as being unmanly, lacking virility. One might think of the characters "John," the receptionist on NYPD Blue, or "Jack" on Will and Grace.

homosexuals, variously described as:

"men who practice homosexuality,"

(ESV); "those who participate in homosexuality," (Amplified);

"abusers of themselves with men," (KJV);

"practicing homosexuals," (NAB);

"homosexuals," (NASB, CSB, NKJ, The Great Book: The New Testament in Plain English);

  "homosexual perversion," (NEB); 

"homosexual offenders," (NIV);

"liers with mankind," (Rhiems); and

"homosexual perverts." (TEV)

Although "homosexual" is a very common translation, it is almost certain to be inaccurate:

  If Paul wanted to refer to homosexual behavior, he would have used the word "paiderasste." That was the standard Greek term at the time for sexual behavior between males.

  The second term is "arsenokoitai" in Greek. The exact meaning of this word is lost. It seems to have been a term created by Paul for this verse. "Arsen" means "man" in Greek. So there is no way that "arsenokoitai" could refer to both male and female homosexuals. It seems that the translators gave in to the temptation to widen Paul's condemnation to include lesbians as well as gay males.

Unfortunately, the term "homosexual" is commonly defined in two different ways: as a behavior (engaging in same-sex activity) or as a sexual orientation (being sexually attracted only to members of the same sex). Most of the biblical translations appear to refer to behavior rather than orientation.

male prostitutes, also described as "men kept for unnatural purposes." It is not clear whether the term "male prostitutes" (NIV, NRSV, CSB) is restricted to homosexuals or may also include men who are heterosexual prostitutes.

  catamites, or boy prostitute. This is a young male who is kept as a sexual partner of an adult male. (Jerusalem Bible, NAB, James Moffatt). These translations provide another example of a theme that runs throughout the Bible: the transfer of guilt and punishment from guilty perpetrators to innocent persons.

  pederasts: male adults who sexually abuse boys; an abusive pedophile (an adult who molests young children) or abusive hebephile (an adult who molests post-pubertal teenagers).

  perverts: a person engaged in some undefined activity that is one of the dozens of sexual activities that some consider to be perversions. (Phillips, The Great Book: The New Testament in Plain English)

  sodomites: a name derived from the city of Sodom which is described in Genesis 19. (NRSV, NKJ). The men of the city are described as wanting to rape male visitors; many Christians interpret this as a blanket condemnation of all homosexual behavior.

(Taken from religious tolerance http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc1.htm )

The word homosexual only came into usage in the English vernacular within the last century, so it makes sense that newer translations would begin to use that word in order to convey the original intent of the text to modern readers.

That you would quote the KJV as what the "original passage once said" demonstrates your ignorance on the subject of Biblical translation. The KJV can in no way be referred to as "original" in that it was a translation of a translation, whereas newer versions such as the NIV or NRSV our direct translations from the original languages.

I sorry let me clarify that for you. I didnt intend for you to think i believe the KJV is the original text. However I question the NIV and NRSV as do many scholars because Greek words that have no translation in English are crudely translated into words that the authors wish they be, even when they are not. You cannot have entirely direct translations because there are many words that cannot be translated and in doing so is inaccurate.

However, let me just point out for you one interesting thing. What you say about the bible against us gays is the same thing the KKK said, as well as other white supremacist in denying the full humanity of african americans.

The word "arsenokoitai" is really not that big a mystery. It is the joining of "man" [arseno] and "lying with" [koitai] and refers back to Leviticus 20:13, which in the Greek translation Paul would likely have been using as he wrote this passage contained "arseno koitai arseno", or, "a man who lies with another man". So it isn't accurate to say Paul "made up a word" -- more accurately, he coined a phrase from existing words. The most accurate translation would probably be "men who have sex with men". Since this refers directly to the behavior, without any exemptions, it is clear that the Bible does speak to the issue of homosexual behavior.

As far as your trying to lump me in with the KKK, I think we've reached the irrational zenith of your ability to argue a point. I've long since learned that when someone resorts to "you're a Nazi" or "you're just like the KKK" in online discussions, the discussion is over at that point.

To be clear, I have not said the Bible speaks against gays as people. I think I've been pretty specific in saying that the Bible condemns certain sexual behaviors, not groups of people. And that is the key difference between our points of view: I do not equate sexual behavior as an identity like race or gender which is why I don't buy the Civil Rights argument.

however like he KKK and other supremacist groups you separate a person into a being and into a behavior, when the behavior and the person go hand in hand. Homosexual people are attracted to those of the same sex, that means physically, emotionally, sexually, and cognitively. You separate the mind from the body, when the mind and the body are connected in order for you to justify your position. This tactic that you learned from your religious leaders is no different than the tactics of what the KKK did to african americans, and what the Nazis did against Jewish people, gay people, gypsisies, German people, and Polish people.

As for your assertions, if you take sex out out of the picture when thinking about gay people, what is left in their relationships? Love, family, sacrifice. So tell me do you think that love is a sin? That committed, unyielding, unconditional love and sacrifice for the spouse of another... is a sin? That is the question here.

Also you forget to mention lesbians. Lesbians are homosexual people if you dont know. But the bible says nothing about them unless you try to use Romans, which most theologians wont even touch on because, most understand that is a passage of idolatry not sexual orientation. So under your rule of thought it is not ok for gay men to love each other and get married, but because lesbian women are homosexual people but because they is no strict reference to lesbians does that mean their love is "moral" and they should be allowed to marry? There is quite a loop hole here because gay men and gay women are the same. They are both homosexual people.

Finally the mentalities of supremacist of yesterday and today are strikingly similar. There is substantial evidence to support this. So in actuality, your use of a religious text, out of context, and your justification for mistreating and marginalizing a whole segment of society of innocent people, actually shares and rivals in the mentality of the KKK back in the 1940. So there is really nothing irrational about it. If you dont feel a certain type, or class of people do not deserve to be treated equally, instead of using your bible, why dont you just be honest and admit that you hate gay people, because you hate "gay" behavior. *That you believe we are lower than you. Why dont you just be honest instead of speaking circles and hiding behind you bible to justify your bigotry.

And it is bigotry because you are intolerant to seeing gay people and their families be equal to your own, and you willfully refuse the science, and the words of many other religions that contradict and overrule you narrow perspective on sexual orientation.

Thank you Chris. Blasting.

I try to do my best.

Chris and Fr. Marty, you are so right.  Unfortunately most so-called Christians will stick their fingers in their ears and sing "LA LA LA LA" before they will actually consider that they could be wrong.  Galileo found that out the hard way.  Faith requires you suspend rational thought, after all... Don't think for yourself, just believe what we tell you to believe, and by the way, fork over your hard earned dollars while you're at it.

In analyzing what the Bible does and doesn't say about homosexuality, here's what it all boils down to for me:

Jesus never said one single word about homosexuality while he walked the earth.  Not one.  Now, if Jesus was God Incarnate, and if homosexuality was such an abomination to the Lord, then wouldn't it stand to reason that He would've said SOMETHING about this while he was here?  I mean, he said lots of things on lots of topics.  He was here for thirty years give or take, so it's not like he didn't have time.  He simply didn't mention it at all!!  Just one measly little sentence perhaps?  Nope.  IT SIMPLY ISN'T IN THE BIBLE -- JESUS NEVER SAID ONE WORD ON THIS SUBJECT.  So, to me it's quite obvious that God literally doesn't give a damn about whether He created you straight or gay.  If He did, then Jesus would've told me so.

What Jesus DID quite clearly say was that we need to worry about loving God, and loving your neighbor as you love yourself.  Everything else is already covered if you just do these two.  That, quite frankly, is all the moral guidance I need.

Jesus broke the law of Moses when he turned away the crowd and saved the woman from being stoned to death for her sin.  (Would God break his own law if it was really his own law?)  And, he did not shun the lepers, which everyone at that time believed were "spiritually unclean" in much the same way today's so-called Christians malign gay people.  If he was here in the flesh today, instead of the prostitutes, tax collectors, and lepers, I'm sure Jesus would be hanging out with the AIDS patients, transvestites, and perhaps a few AIG executives.

I wonder, if Jesus was around today, how would he vote on the issue of gay marriage?  Would he vote to take rights away from people?  Or would he be telling the present day scribes and pharisees to stop wasting their millions of dollars trying to make people into second class citizens, and instead donate their money to feed some homeless kids or provide medicine in third world countries?  If the answer is not obvious to you, then I suggest you have your head and your Bible WAY too far up your ass.

If you truly pay attention to Jesus, you quickly realize the rest of the Bible belongs in the shitcan.  I don't care what the Bible says or who said it, unless it was Jesus talking.  The rest -- shitcan.  Where it belongs.

@ Shawn - Your "the sky is falling" hysteria about gay marriage has not been proven by reality. Massachusetts and the other states where a majority of citizens believe in equality and have legalized gay marriage have provisions that exempt religious groups. Religious groups are and should be protected from going against their beliefs.

Perhaps you should be more worried about the object failure of heterosexual marriage in today's culture - over a 50 percent failure rate. Since gay marriage was introduced in Massachusetts, the overall rate of divorce has dropped to the lowest level since World War II.

As far as adoption, the state should not be utilizing the services of groups that discriminate. Orphans need to be placed with loving families that have been screened by social workers. Numerous studies show that children of homosexual couples are not any more or less likely to be gay than children of heterosexual couples.

And you are incorrect in your understanding of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. The Greek word that has recently (in the past two generations) been interpreted as "homosexual" actually means "pederasts." Pederasty is about the tradition of the Greeks to allow short-term sexual relationships between adult men and pubescent boys. That was wrong then and is wrong now, but it is not referring to committed long term monogamous same gender relationships between consenting adults.

Unfortunately, cultural bias has always found its way into the translation of Scripture. Just as the scribes of King James changed the gender of Nympha in last chapter of the book of Colossians to avoid even the possibility that a New Testament era woman was leading a house church congregation. That bias continues today as churches continue to use that flawed (albeit poetic) translation. [Compare a copy of a King James version to a New American Standard version Bible]

Burton Bagby-Grose: "The Greek word that has recently (in the past two generations) been interpreted as "homosexual" actually means "pederasts." Pederasty is about the tradition of the Greeks to allow short-term sexual relationships between adult men and pubescent boys. That was wrong then and is wrong now, but it is not referring to committed long term monogamous same gender relationships between consenting adults."

Thank you, Burton, I was wondering when someone was going to bring this up. I would have, but couldn't figure out how to put it right.

I know that Paul used a word that didn't have a direct translation into English because it was a word he made up to describe a class of people, kind of like when someone says Repugnant-can or Demo-crap today.

@Burton Bagby-Grose

The Greek word used in this passage that we were disucssing is "arsenokoitai". As I said above, there really isn't a big mystery about what this word means: it simply joins "man" and "lying with". It doesn't refer to pederasty, but rather is very simple. The most accurate translation would probably be "men who have sex with men".

@Shawn Hopper

You are incorrect Shawn.

From Professor L.M. White:

1.    There is no general word for same sex relationships in the New Testament or in the contemporary literature, whether Jewish, Christian, or pagan. Hence, these is still no such denotative conceptual category.
2.    The New Testament inherit from Judaism an antipathy toward Hellenistic culture, which often manifests itself as a polemic against idolatry and its attendant “vices,” This is how the early Hellenistic Jewish literature uses and translates the older language in Deuteronomy and Leviticus about the “abominations” that accompany idolatry. Note especially The Wisdom of Solomon 14:8-14.
3.    Two of the three key passages in the New Testatment (i.e., 1 Cor. 6:9-10 and 1 Tim. 1:9-10) reflect this tradition, inasmuch as they are generally rather brief and formulaic denunciations of sexual “vices” in a longer list of vices. They presuppose that the audience – both pagan and Jewish – will already agree that these are bad things.

NOTE: The real reference is to Greek pederasty not to some vague generalization about same sex relations.
The two key terms in Greek (as seen in 1 Cor. 6:9-10) are: malakoi – meaning “soft” or “effeminate,” but where the term is regularly used of the passive partner in the pederastic relationship; and
Arsenokoitai – meaning “one who sleeps with a male,” but where the contect refers directly to the active partner in the pederastic relationship.

I think there's been a misunderstanding. The pastor was saying that the homosexual lifestyle was not "God's best" for you - If I understand him, he is simply saying that (like divorce or single parenting) it's not the best way to go. After having left a life threatening abusive first marriage and a second marriage where my child had been molested, I can say divorce saved me and my kids but it still wasn't "God's best". I am married for the 3rd time and my husband is very Christ-like. He does not judge me, criticise me, hurt me of my kids. He is supportive, loving, self-sacrificing. Were it not for this man I might never have known how good "God's best" is. There is no way to describe it and I don't feel I deserve it but I did ask God for it years ago. My point is, there is no homophobia going on here. Sexual sin is a sin like any other sin. God saved me out of my sexual sin. It is sad that the act as a lifestyle has been taken as an identity and is therefore used to judge those with the courage to speak the truth. Hatred and judgmentalism are displayed as much if not more so by those caught in the sticky web of addiction and sexual sin as it is by those who merely point out that the actions are not "God's best" for your life. 

@ Bonnie Russell,

nobody has the right to decide for somebody else, who doesn't harm nor damage anybody else, what is best or worst for you. It all comes down to ego syntony vs. ego dystony. Of course that ego-dystonical homosexuals i.e. those false homosexuals who are bothered by their same sex attractions and who do not want to be homosexuals, they can (if they can) or perhaps even should try to change it. But such homosexuals are tiny minority comparing to vast majority of homosexuals who are IN PEACE with themselves, with their sexual orientation and with God, so NOBODY HAS THE RIGHT to force (whether indirectly or even less directly) them/us to change so to become something (such as heterosexual) we actually never can nor want nor should be! Nobody is forcing heterosexuals to become gays- therefore no heterosexual should dare to force gays to become heterosexual!

Finally, God's best (or worst) for whomever are very relative notions, they only depend on one's own inner feeling and sense of what is best, worst or neutral for oneself! Therefore, pastor Osteen shouldn't have let his tongue be quicker than his mind and he should have watched what he was saying! If nothing else, the political correctness IS IMPORTANT!

Having said this, I want to express my agreements with excellent posts written by Ioan Lightoller and Barbara McNamarra! Exactly so! We ultimately have to guard the limits of how much we can allow antigay trolls to push the limits on this site! I mean, discussion is welcome, but we're faced here with spiteful antigays such as Richard Ortiz (who's worse than K Linnemann), Carole (who spews prejudices of how gays have become) and some others with whom further discussion is- useless! They're the homohateful and homodespiseful provocators who don't deserve anymore our efforts to reason with them.

I have borne a quite brunt of homohatred and heterosexism throughout my young life although I've never been out nor have I ever talked about my homosexuality to anyone, having left one easterneuropean country where right wing ideologies made wars, genocides, urbicides, where homohatred and heterosexism are rampant, where not even a mere right to privacy nor intimacy is respected for gay people (consequently, I didn't have any!) by heterosexuals, where a mere suspicion that someone might be gay is manifested with attacks whether physical or psychological on gay people, with mockery, with insults, with humiliations or even murders committed on by heterosexuals over gays, and I am sensitive to antigay harrassments. Moreover, due to those unfavorable circumstances in which I've lived, I happened to have remained still in my 34th year of life unwantedly totally abstinent and celibate, although totally in peace and glad to be gay and decently looking (told good looking) and healthy! Having immigrated to this country, I still encountered very much similar antigay prejudices and intolerance in this depressive, cranky, miserable, provincial close-minded rust belt city of Pittsburgh, PA where a refugee agency has chosen to be my destination.  To make a really and seriously long story shorter, among other reasons, that's why I am VERY VERY HURT by all the lies, stereotypes, prejudices so many heterosexists spread about gay people. Everything so called christian right and other antigays say about gays is opposite from truth in my liffe!

So, when will you fundie co called Christians STOP, at least for the sake of common decency, interferring negatively in our gay lives? I again repeat, NO gay person is interested in your hetero lives at all, so you heterosexists REALLY NEED TO STOP being negatively interested in gay lives, rights and interests!

damn', with these american fundie religiosists around, I feel like I'm still in Eastern Europe surrounded by dogmatic bolshevik communists. do you christianist fundies realize how similar in your collectivism you are to dogmatic communists? 

Santic I have some good news from you straight from the APAs headlines.

"You cannot change sexual orientation what so ever, and doing so has only shown to cause harm to patients."

What you refer to as "false homosexuals" are not homosexual or bisexual at all. They are heterosexual men that devolve a kink in their sexual prowess and seek out to fill that gap by having sex with gay men. Dr. Joe Kort has studied in depth these individuals and explain this phenomenon in his books. These are known specifically by us at the APA as straight men who have sex with men. or SMSM. While we at the APA find nothing wrong with people exploring their sexual orientation, most of these individuals do so in an unhealthy manner, and we know that it is due to societal pressure that causes this unhealthy way of going about oneself.

Such examples are with Pastor Ted Haggard, who defied the odds and was able to have sex on speed and cocaine. Some of us contend that he is in fact gay, while others say he is a sad example of SMSM which only hurts the LGBT community even more.

Another thing to note is that when this kink in heterosexual has formed it has not been proven that it can be changed and the same rules apply for reorientation therapy. This same kink has also been found in some gay people who have sex with those of the opposite sex. Some call it bi-curious, but it really is not. It should be known though that this has nothing to do with sexual orientation and more to do with sexual behavior and thought patterns as you mentioned.

Also egodystonic and egosyntonic "homosexuals" have been removed from all manner of discussion in the APA cornering sexual orientation for some time now. While we understand people have problems accepting themselves we have made strong claims that psychologist, psychiatrist, and counselors help such patients who struggle with their feelings to find peace in some way. Whether it be by understanding that there is nothing wrong with a normal and positive variant of sexual orientation, or perhaps looking into another religious organization that supports individuals like the person in question, the APA has urged all of its members to help elivate the guilt, shame, and fear, that has been placed on them for being LGBT.  As I was saying...Even people who are SMSM do not fall under this category of ego syntony or dystony. As a person who understands psychology as well, you should know that sexual orientation is proving to be far more complex to classify into a simple black and white perspective. Even more complex than Alfred Kinsey had ever imagined.

Mr. hopper...

The good friar was merely pointing out that man's attempts to understand the mind of deity will always fail due to our innate negativety.

Just as the passages used to condemn gallileo were misinterpreted so are the passages being used to condemn homosexuality being misinterpreted.

Logic is possible even for those of us who choose to be spiritual rather than religious and therein lies the key to understanding...

Go by the spirit rather than the letter of the law and you'll be much less likely to be led astray.

No homophobia miss russel ?

How do you condemn, what would be, the natural sexual practices of someone, based on their sexual orientation, without condemning them as human beings ?

No homophobia my ass.

P.S. Im glad you found happiness...Now lets just hope that the G.L.B.T. community gains equality soon so as to more easily facilitate what would be happiness for them as well.

He should say he is either against homosexuality or says he accepts homosexuality as a choice.His speeches are double talk.

Homosexuality is NOT a choice, it is as innate as skin color. With all the hate in this bigoted country, why on earth would anyone 'chose' it?

Religion is a choice, if you choose to stay in one that hates other people, that is your choice. Many of us don't, and we don't respect you for doing so.

Lee,

i am a queer Christ-follower who loves G-D. NOT all Christians are homophobes. i have MANY staright ally friends who are Christians. PLEASE don't lump us all together. Just b/c we stay in our faith does not mean we endorse or condone homophobia and hate. We call people out on it all the time. Our faith is very important and dear to us. i respect that you wish not to be a part. BUT, please don't disrespect those of us who are Christians. Christianity was not meant to be a religion of rules but a way of life.

Thanks.

Warmest Regards

Existential Punk

Here we go again:  The Gay Right Extremists jumping at Any opportunity to chastise on their self-righteous soap boxes, toward anyone that does not approve of a gay lifestyle. Pastor Osteen is now their target for not supporting same sex 'relations', which is not only his right, but a personal belief he has drawn on from his study and interpretation of the Bible. Plus, there are numerous scriptures throughout the Bible that support his beliefs, which many in the gay community acknowledge but, choose to overlook, interpret to benefit their sexual preference, which is their right). Here:  Timothy 1:8-11; Corinthians 6:9-11; Romans 1: (18-)24-28, are just to name a few.

Yet Paster Osteen  Has NOT Discriminated against the gay community, nor has he condemned them. He politely expressed that through what he perceives from the Bible, that a gay lifestyle is not what He considers God's best, which is HIS Right.

His sermons do not & have never focused on this particular issue, but on the Many issues of every human being, which is not contributing to God's best. We ALL have inperfections, no matter how hard we try.  His message is that a gay life style, smoking, divorce, alcohol, food gluttony, promiscuity, materialism, selling ones self short, not believing and striving for Gods blessings, and so many other things, are All not part of being One of God's Best.  But Pastor Osteen reminds us that because of Jesus, our savior, We are forgiven for all our imperfections, by a merciful God, if we put our faith and beliefs in, and do our best to Please God. Which is a personal Choice.

The Gay Soap Box Antics is what makes So Much of society stand against the gay community. Nobody really give a crud who gay people have "relations" with. Society is just sick of the gay life style being Rammed down the Public throat, and forced to not only accept it, but condone it.

Or suffer the consequences of being labeled a Homophobic bigot.  Enough.

I'm not against Gay Marriage which is probably a more successful union than many heterosexual marriages (I voted for it in CA).

With that said, that doesn't mean that I consider a same sex life style as normal. I don't condemn those that chose to live a gay life style. I condemn those that demand I change my views to support their sexual preference. Not approving of a gay life style is not condemnation, it is the right to a personal opinion.

That personal opinion is NOT worthy of slanderous accusations from beaver bumping, rear rodding extremists.

It is your antics demaning society condone same sex as normal, that builds so much resentment; Not the actual same sex acts, that should be kept private. But you extremist's will never get it.

Your understanding of the psychology behind sexual orientation is shallow, misunderstood, and poorly mistaken. Sexual orientation is not a lifestyle, nor is it a choice.

As for the soap box argument you brought forth, leaders of our passed would disagree with your statement whole heartily, for it is speaking and bringing the oppression so close to the surface that once it boils over people realize the actions and beliefs they hold are the reason why innocent lives are destroyed.

If you do not speak out agiasnt bigotry, then it only gets stronger. Only when you remind people of their bigotry do they start to realize it for themselves.

It was not socially considered bigotry 95 years ago to preach using the bible that women were "less than men and that only demons possessing women would give the the audacity to challenge the will of man and god. That such women must be shown their place in society by forcing onto them their birth right as mothers and mothers only." Yes the fundamentalist christian pastors did in fact condon the rape and brutality of women who wanted nothing more than to have the right to vote.

People like you made the same comments on such women, calling them everything from whores, possessed by demons, that their lifestyle of denying the truth of god is not normal nor should be socially accepted, to many other dehumanizing things.

So here you are a "woman" who knows nothing about the christian religion in their fight to oppress people like you from being able to even vote. A person who is completely oblivious that it is because of religion that women only make 75% of what men make even today. And yet you use your bible and your religion to then turn around and chastise and discriminate against an already hurting and disenfranchised minority?

Shame on you, I pity your ancestors whole are most likely rolling over in their graves, that fought and faced brutality to give you the rights you have today while you use the same tactics of yesterday to discriminate against a new minority seeking the same things your ancestors did. Shame on you.

FYI many of the people on here are not just gay but also straight and are supporters.

Miss tawil...

Based on the substance of your post above, I find it rather hard to believe that you would vote in favor of same sex marriage BUT acting on the assumption that you did in fact vote for it...Why ?

Why would you vote in favor of something that you so clearly disaprove of ?

Shawn, GLBTQ people have had it up to here with your talibangelists and their using the issues of our lives to gain brownie points with/inflame their followers. I don't have Barbara's theological expertise but I do know prejudice and hate when I see it.

Many of us are not Christian and do not believe in the Bible and we are sick and tired of Christianists meddling in our civil rights. If you wish to believe this sort of thing, fine. It's a free country (at least for heterosexuals) but do not attempt to make your religious beliefs (that homosexuality is a sin) the law of the land. It is the constant meddling of the Christianist that is reprehensible.

I noticed elsewhere that fundies cannot understand our anger. Try living our lives for a week or two and you will understand.

This Pastor Olsteen is just a "kinder, gentler" bigot in my book.

I'll give you that Pastor Osteen is allowed to interpret the Bible any way he sees fit. What I take issue with regarding his ministry is that he says "Oh, LGBT people are welcome at my church," and "Oh, I love LGBT people as much as I love everyone," but then he goes and says stuff like, "homosexuality is not God's best."

That's hypocritical. Sugar-coating homophobia doesn't make it any less appropriate. And it is homophobia. It's homophobia he justifies under the guise of biblical interpretation, but it's still at the end of the day a very discriminatory worldview regarding LGBT people.

@loan Lightoller – That this country was founded by those seeking freedom from religious persecution, and now according to you, should not be allowed to vote their conscience at the ballot box is pretty ironic. The fact is that a great many people do not believe re-defining marriage to include same-sex relationships is about Civil Rights at all. Rather, it is about re-defining what society finds acceptable and what it does not. This may eventually swing in your favor, and if and when it does, that will be that. But this great leap that has been made equating the re-definiton of marriage as a Civil Rights issue is one of the more audaciously absurd leaps the gay activist movement has made in the last 30 years.

@ Michael Jones – What Osteen is saying (as best I can judge not being him) is that he loves people regardless of their issues. And, within his understanding of Christian theology, homosexual behavior is on the same level as any other sin people commit. So, he isn't being hypocritical at all. All people, regardless of what sin they struggle with, are welcome at his church.  What you find so offensive is that he calls homosexual behavior a sin at all.

Shawn homosexuality has been confirmed by science as a non chosen characteristic of people that should be accepted. We in the APA are fed up with people who wish to beat this dead horse on what they "believe" homosexuality to be, as starkly contrasted by what it is.

Homosexuality is not a choice, there is great evidence that supports the hypothesis that it is innate.

Homosexuality cannot be changed.

Homosexual people and their sexual orientation are equally capable of the same life experiences as heterosexual people.

Because homosexuality is not negative, and has no negative impact on society, the persons who are homosexual, or kin, there is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality and it should no longer be treated or cast in such a false and negative light. 

Finally as history has shown race, like sexual orientation is not a choice, it is innate, and in this day in age we do not vote on the rights of racial minorities. However, back during segregation, people used the bible to support systemic racism, apartheid, and anti-miscegenation. Even during that time we did not allow the people to vote on the rights of african americans because it violated the Constitution. Just as "voting with their conscious at the ballot box" is just as unconstitutional.

No majority, no matter how right the majority thinks it is, has the constitutional right to vote and strip away or add rights to a minority. It is a clear violation of the 5th amendment's due process clause, the 14th amendment's equal protection clause, and using faith at all in such ballot initiatives which you clearly state, is a direct and complete violation of the Enactment Clause of the constitution that strictly forbids religion being used in politics.

Also marriage as a civil institution in this country was never and has never been religious. That is why it is called civil marriage: which the name and rights LGBT people want for their families. You might actually want to download or rent the movie "Mr. & Mrs. Lovings." In that USSC case the supreme court held, yet again, that marriage is a civil right to all people and cannot be denied on any basis, especially religious.

As for people it has become apparent that in order to change peoples minds about the lives of others, which should should have no business in, you have force equality unto those people. Only when those people, like yourself, have to see and treat, the disfavored and hated minority of the time, equally, do minds actually change and tolerance with full acceptance is born.

There are so many assertions within your post that are simply not true, I don't know where to begin.

Science has not confirmed that homosexuality is an innate characteristic and it certainly is not immutable. I know for an absolute fact that people with homosexual desires and attractions can change.

As far as it being a choice, I don't deny that same-sex attraction is never chosen by an individual, but whether that person decides to embrace that attraction as an identity and live it out certainly is a choice.

Regarding your opinions of constitutional theory, well, they're just plain rubbish. The "Enactment Clause"? If you refer to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, your interpretation is completely wrong. The constitution does not forbid citizens from voting their conscience, whether that conscience is derived from religious belief or not. That is a patently absurd notion that should be obvious on its face as wrong. If you can't vote your conscience, what set of values are you to superimpose on yourself in order to vote?

Somehow along the way so many people, including yourself apparently, have forgotten that the purpose of the Bill or Rights was to reserve to the people those specific rights so fundamental that they could not be assumed to be protected without explicit instructions. The Federal government is the entity who is restricted by the language of the Bill or Rights, NOT the people!

Is marriage a Civil Right protected by the Constitution? Yes, if not explicitly, it is via modern jurisprudence. That is not the question. The question is whether this civil institution should be RE-DEFINED to include same-sex relationships. So far, society has decided against this re-definition.

I never said confirmed I said there is a great amount of evidence that supports that hypothesis.

As for people that changed to be straight, as a survivor of ex-gay therapy, as well as a researcher for the APA, it is a scientific fact that sexual orientation cannot be changed. You might want to ponder this thought: "Are these ex-gays really straight or are they so ashamed of who they are they are lying to themselves and to others to be accepted by society?" As well as "How many ex-gays say there were gay when there is evidence that they are in fact bisexual, however that is not recorded because of these organizations poor tract record of keeping accurate results, if keeping any results at all?" As I have stated, every medical and mental health profession agrees on that. Your opinions and the opinions of other religious conservatives does not overturn the science, no matter how much you wish it did.

As for the establishment clause, sorry for my miss wording; its kind of hard when you working on a dissertation all hours of the night and day; the government has no right establishing a particular religion other any other, or even acknowledging a religion and these ballot measures have been mainly fundamentalist christianity.

As for civil rights you must have missed the part where i specified that the rights of a minority, according to the equal protection clause, are protected from majoritarian tryanny. Also it is quite clear that motives to strip families of their marriage rights, and protections is funded and fueled by religiosity. The government should not recognize such efforts for they are not secular in nature. Also note there is no secular argument against same sex marriage that cannot be dismantled for its poor logic, and terrible rational.

Finally, if sexual orientation were a choice, given that homosexual orientation is no different than heterosexual orientation in terms of affection, maturnity, and empathy, why would it be ok to discriminate still? We do not discriminate agianst brown hair verses blonde hair on a legal basis with such constitutional rights such as marriage. So if sexual orientation were a choice; when did you choose to be straight? Did you wake up one morning and choose to be straight? Was it about the same time you decided to be christian? Because while it has been established that sexual orientation is not a choice, religiosity is a choice, and it does have some seriously negative impacts on society and innocent peoples lives.

As for homosexuality being a choice that is not recognized by science, and despite what you say, your arguments are simply nothing more than unscientific dribble. As a scientist I am disappointed that people still refuse to listen to the science, our hard work, our dedication in our fields, and the many facts we have found on many topics, over religious text that are writen for a context of fifteen hundred years ago. However... people still strangely debate evolution, which has more substantial evidence than any other theory, fact, and conclusion in all of science. So for someone like you to debate what we at the APA have stated and concluded from the facts, is nothing of a surprise when people still refuse to understand and comprehend the simplicity of evolution.

Good day

Further more why should somone not embrace who they are when that part of them is neutral or positive. Why should gay people have to deprive themselves of a fulfilling life, with love, and family, you know the "pursuit of happiness," just because of your beliefs? Our Declaration of Independence cleary states that it is unjust to deprive any person of life, liberty and their pursuit of happiness.

When you allow unconstitutional ballot measure to strip people of their rights, you deprive them from being able to live their lives, "life," you deprive them of equal oppertunity and standing amoungst peers "liberty," and finally you deprive them of basic rights to establish and secure their family through the same means as you, "pursuit of happiness."

Does it not seems rather selfish to expect people to conform to you because of your beliefs. Now before you try and turn that around on me. How is giving equal human beings their full equal rights selfish? It doesn't mean you have to accept them on a religious grounds, it just mean you have to accept them on a legal ground for being equal in their humanity to you. That includes acknowledging there legal civil marriages as civil marriages. That does not mean you have to accept them as religiously married. Again I have stated that legal and religious are two separate things. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

Some of us believe (because we have used our brains to think about it) that the only 'sin' is to reject the Golden Rule. 

All other 'sins' are made up by the religions of the world to keep people supporting their business enterprise of 'church.' 

Shawn, the best studies of determinance of 'nature vs nurture' are those done with identical twin subjects, especially if it is known whether they have been raised together or aprart. Yes, many are separated. 

The Swedish homosexual study presents evidence for both male and female homosexuality to be innate.  Whereas you know, religion is 100% 'instructed'.  

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080628205430.htm

Homosexual Behavior Largely Shaped By Genetics And Random Environmental Factors

Bipolar disorder or schizoaffective disorder are also likely innate.

No one holds the person suffering these disorders responsible for experiencing them.

However, no one encourages them to celebrate these disorders as some sort of foundational identity to their personhood.

Instead, they're encouraged to get treatment so they can gain some amount of freedom from the psychological disorder.

When it comes to homosexuality however, we're supposed to accept this disorder as a natural, normative variation of human sexuality and further, now you want society to celebrate this disorder by calling it marriage. Well, I simply cannot go along with this wholesale abandonment of common sense. 

Gay marriage is not a Civil Rights issue in the same way that granting multiple driver's licenses to accommodate a schizophrenic's multiple identities is not a Civil Rights issue.

As stated by thousands of doctors and scientist, sexual orientation, and homosexuality are not mental disorders. You need to start reading buddy. You know really read about the subject. Instead of just listening to your pastors idiocies as they fly out of his mouth.

http://www.apahelpcenter.org/articles/article.php?id=31

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/resolution-resp.html

After what I have shown you as a scientist and what Dr. Dorsey has shown you it is time for you to do the most forbidden sin of them all, to think and question your leaders words. Because I sure you are nothing but a mere follower. And if you are a pastor yourself then you need to question the people around you that influenced your mind to be so dehumanizing to an innocent minority just for who they love.

That is another thing to discuss, you marginalize gay people for who they love... Not who they hate, not who they hurt, not who they destroy, conquer, oppress, disenfranchise (all are examples of what religion has done to people), no...  we are marginalized for who we love. Killed for who we love, hated for who we love that is the battle we face. A battle religion has created and so too religion will end; just as they did when they marginalized African American people, Native Americans, Women, etc.

However, this time, it is time for religions that build themselves up on hate to crumble with those who hate. For they are the brain child of oppression and social stagnation. The hinder the evolution of the human race, both mentally and physically. They care not for this planet's well being because of a much greater afterlife promised to them. It is these religion are are killing everything and everyone. It must end now! These religions have become the scourge of humanity. It is time that we as scientist, and those who have real compassion for their fellow human being, become the cure.

1. I never heard the word "Talibangelist" before. Thank you - I just LOVE it! Very descriptive. This and "Repugnican" get my vote for the most meaningful made up new terms to enter the English vocabulary this year.

2. Enough with giving a shit what anyone thinks was written in any ancient book that may have had some relevance in a totally different reality that what we are dealing with here in the 21st Century.

Like the Taliban and other Militant Muslim groups, Christian fundamentalists in America want to perpetuate the mores of the dark ages - particularly in regard to negative attitudes toward homosexuality - but they twist everything else in their bible to rationalize their desire to indulge in advances of civilization that brought us to the 21st Century.

The concept of democracy was completely foreign to the ancient minds responsible for all those stories that make up the bible. Didn't matter if they did not agree with or like the authority of their overlords and monarchs that ruled over them. They did whatever they were told to do and thought what they were told to think. They knew their places. Did not even matter what they experienced or wanted out of life for themselves. The writers of the bible did not even envision a time when human slavery would be frowned upon, much less when democracy would be the basis of government anywhere on earth. 

People who live in this democratically-ruled country today and claim to base their world-view on the bible are therefore nothing more than hypocrites if they do not refrain from participating in our democratic process. 

Times have change, baby! And you know it's all been for the better. If not, then take yourself out of this modern context altogether. Go back to living without electricity, cars, TV and the freakin internet. Your bible doesn't give you permission to indulge such vices!

If you insist on imposing a medieval mindset - with its strictures against homosexual relationships and many other things that are facts of life in this contemporary world - then YOU HAVE NO RIGHT to enjoy ANY of the modern conveniences and privileges that have developed since the time the last book of your precious little bible was written. 

You may be able to impede the progress of an enlightened civilization, but you cannot stop it. We SHALL overcome! Oh yes we will.

You all who have blocked our way for so long will soon be totally irrelevant, just as you were when ruled over by medieval monarchs and patricians who told you what to do, how to think and what to believe.

And you can all just go to hell!

Shawn,

What are you talking about? Your post is almost not worth a response. You cannot compare a devastating mental illness to homosexuality. Homosexuality is not an illness, there is nothing wrong with it, it doesn't affect your life, so get over it and move on. Pray a child be born homosexual and not bipolar. Mood disorders are incredibly complex, so you cannot say that they are likely innate.

You said, "No one holds the person suffering these disorders responsible for experiencing them." Really? I seriously don't think the common person understands the definition of bipolar disorder, so how could they not hold a manic person responsible for inappropriate behavior, or a depressed person responsible for being lazy and not getting off the couch? Meds don't solve everything and have horrible side effects. Alas, this is not a forum to discuss compassion for people with mood disorders.

When I was a lot younger and growing up in a closed-minded community, I thought homosexuality was kinda weird and didn't understand it. Then, I moved away, grew up and made close friends from all different cultures, countries and OMG, sexual orientations. Thank goodness for that. Perhaps you are now in the position I was in when I was younger. Let's give you a chance to learn and grow. When we are making positive choices and loving others like we love ourselves, we are all best.

Mr. jc...

One correction to your post...

I suffer from disthymic disorder also known as disthymia which is a form of chronic depression and have suffered from it for years, even before I knew what was wrong with me.

I assure you sir that it doesnt make me lazy but rather it does sap me of any and all motivation.

Please dont assume that a depressed person is lazy.

Oh, I do apologize. I didn't intend for my post to be read that way at all. I meant that someone who didn't know better could assume a depressed person was being lazy by staying on the couch. Sorry about that.

No problem mr. jc and thank you for understanding. :)

Barbara – You are right that interpretation does change over time. However, all the current "interpretations" that attempt to justify homosexual behavior are so contorted that they cannot gain any traction among serious biblical scholars.

For two thousands years, some faction or another has been shouting, "down with Christianity". I highly doubt that the present attacks will be any more successful.

My marriage (Yes, I AM married) is not up for a vote it is my civil right as an American citizen. Many in this country are neither religious nor Christian. We DO NOT care what your holy book says or does not say about GLBTQ people.

Get over yourself. I am a married, completely monogamous lesbian married to the most wonderful woman in the world. I resent people like you making judgement calls on people's morality and using your Bible as the crutch. Just come out and say you hate us--at least you'd be honest!

@Ioan Lightoller – I don't hate you, and I don't resent you either. And, your sexual behaviors or mores don't prevent you from getting married in any district of the country that I know of. It is simply that I disagree with you that the institution of marriage should be re-defined to include same-sex relationships.

As far as my using the Bible as a crutch... that doesn't make any sense. The Bible says what it says and you either agree or you don't. The Bible paints a picture of God's creative intent, man's intermittent faithfulness and God's faithful redemption. Homosexual behavior doesn't reflect this picture of God's intent for His creation. You're perfectly free to reject that, just as I am free to embrace it.

Over the last 30 years the gay activist movement has worked to change the perception of homosexual behavior as a result of a psycho-sexual dysfunction, to this idea that a sexualized attachment to a person of the same sex is some kind of inherent identity. As we can see in Maine, they still have 50+ percent of the population yet to convince. That I remain in that camp doesn't mean I hate you, I simply have not yet been convinced.

Shawn you forget that many of the LGBT who are fighting for marriage are in fact Christians who have prodigious support from their religious leaders. Do not forget that.

Also it is the biblical scholars who are the ones that are fighting for LGBT against the use of the bible to condemn homosexuality. They are the ones who have concluded that the bible doesn't say anything about homosexuality at all. You might want to listen to what doctorate theologians have to say over what pastors and priest have to say.

Here is are two great portal sight to get started

www.religioustolerance.org

www.soulforce.org

Oh and just for the record, shawn, the basis of homosexuality being added to the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders was caused by botched and bias studies done by Paul Cameron. Even psychologist before Cameron concluded that there was nothing wrong, psychologically, with homosexuality or homosexual people. You might want to read Freud's work over the dribble on NARTH and that was decades before Cameron.

Today it has been concluded that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. Every major medical, and mental health organization has concluded that and has mountains of evidence to support their findings. The notion that NARTH gives about gay activist bullying the APA and AMA is not only false it it also disenfranchises hundreds of thousands of doctors, psychologist, and psychiatrist over the words of a few bias and religious individuals who cant and wont accept the science over their opinions.

Trying to use outdated and discredited notions from botched studies by bias scientist is does not warrant you a soap box for which to speak from. All it warrants is for people like me to correct people like you, while everyone chuckles at the hole you keep digging yourself into. As one would say "your tied to the tracks and that train just keeps running over you."

teacher they said to Jesus" this woman was caught in the very act of adultery. The law of Mosis says to stone her. What do you say? They were trying to trap him into saying something they could use against him, but Jesus stooped down and wrote in the dust with his finger. They kept demanding an answer so he stood up again and said. All right stone her. but let those who have never sinned throw the first stone! Then he stooped down again and wrote in the dust. When the accusers heard this they slipped away one by on beginning with the oldest until only Jesus was left in the middle of the crowd with the woman. Then Jesus stood up again and said unto her Where are your accusers?  Didn't even one of them condemn you? No Lord, she said.

And Jesus said"Neither do I. go and sin no more

Although this scripture is talking about adultery I believe it gives an excellent picture of the Jesus of the bible.

He doesn't condemn people  but

He also doesn't condone sin

You know what is so sad Nick... is that back 60 years ago it was a sin to be black. Ninty five years ago it was a sin to be a women who wanted to vote. One hundred and twenty years ago, not only was being black a sin, but it was heresy if you wanted to free slaves. 

How interesting is this notion of sin when we innacuratly apply it to people for who they are, so we can justify our mistreatment of them, rather than looking within ourselves and finding the root of such resentment on innocent people who do us no wrong. Hate can be so ingraned into our minds that we think such a simple quote like you have said seems polite, when it is bigotry with a grin.

Remember... The vitriolic words of Adolf Hitler that lead to the mass slaughter of many Jewish people, Gypsies, gay people, German and Polish people did not resonate with anger but with compassion. The truest form of evil and malice is that of the darkness which seeks to shroud itself within the light. When the words of your leaders state "separate, segregate, convert, do not accept, fear," over "include, love, understand, accept whole heartily," it makes one question the veracity of those leader's holiness and their alignment to what they say is good.

For if good is excluding people and their families from being seen as people and as families, but something lower, then what is evil when such is what is being perspired by the likes of you.

Dave,

Thanks for your honesty. I do think you should re-think your attitude though because at the end of the day, the fact that you hate me doesn't affect me at all. Instead, you will go through your days bearing the weight of hating someone else while I am free from such pain. Your choosing to hate me only hurts you.

Aside from that, I've never said "gays and lesbians... are condemned to eternal burning" because I don't believe that. In Romans 3 it is made clear that no person on earth is without sin: "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus."

There isn't a person on earth who is without sin, who doesn't fall short of God's intended design for us. But thankfully, the grace made available through Jesus' sacrifice on the cross means all of us, gay or straight, can come to Jesus and receive forgiveness for our sins and be reconciled to God.

This is what I believe. Your characterizations above are your own and certainly don't reflect my beliefs.

I don't hate you but I hate the intolerance of those and others like you. I do not debate that you have the right to believe as you wish. But in denying the right of same-sex marriage you are interfering in the lives of people whose marriage would in no way affect your life (except possibly upset you that the horrible gays can legally join).

You fail to understand that a number of those who have replied to this thread are not fundamentalist Christians. We do not want your version of what the world should be shoved down our throats. We do not care what you believe, only that you are trying to force us to live as you believe, not as we believe. Giving us our civil rights in no way obligates you to live as we do. If you do not like homosexuality, then do not have gay sex (since for you it is all sex and behaviour anyhow). If you do not like gay marriage, then do not enter into marriage with a same-sex partner. It really is that simple.

Fundamentalist Christians are not the only people who are citizens and who pay taxes. We will not stop until we are given our God/dess given civil rights, either via the ballot box or from the US Supreme Court.

It is so tragic that something which has come so simply in other countries is denied us because some people cannot live and let live.

are not all of them like that? Trying to sell an invisible and fictitious product to those gullible enough to buy into it?

Mike by telling his people that "we are not gods best" is an outright judgement. He is a judgemental person. The attribution error amongst religious people is astounding. "I dont judge gay people i just think its a sin." That right there is a judgement. Everyone makes judgements it is part of our who we are. Judgements stem from our abilities to rationalize our behaviors and thoughts. If we didn't make judgments then we would have never have mentally evolved past the primate state.

Even if a god did exist, how would this ingrate know this from reading a book written by sheep hearding primitives who thought every animal species was in walking distance of Noah's house? I call him a ingrate because he is ungratful towards the people who are trying to live their lives while everyone judges them because they choose to live their lives, and not the lives the Osteen and his ilk want them to live.

Just because he sounds nice and polite doesnt mean he is not a bigot. The most powerful forms of bigotry are not said with venomous and vitriolic words, but with words of compassion.

I notice also, Matthew, that you left out the bits where it says that eating shellfish and wearing mixed-thread clothing is also an abomination, and where it says that if you break one part of the law, you're guilty of breaking all of the law (so eating shrimp cocktail makes you just as guilty as gay sex), and the part where it says that you have to either choose the Law of Moses or the Grace of Jesus Christ, you can't have both.

Also, earlier translations of Leviticus 18:22 originally said "Man shall not lie with manchild as with woman..." so that means pedophilia is right out.

Regarding Leviticus itself, the book was written specifically for the Levites, which was a class of priests. These were the rules for the priesthood and their families. The book doesn't even apply to people outside that caste.

So, do you follow Jesus or Moses, and are you a Jewish priest?

Try telling that to Shawn Hooper Mike. Let's see how well that goes.

Apparently you didn't read many of the posts... it is replete with religious condemnation...for and against. I have noticed that Mr. Jones likes to pick the odd duck as his target rather than the hard nut like the Maine SSM vote. Bit of a waste to go gunning after a soft ball like Osteen not condemning the gays outright (using the same tired old dirty republicans and alleged sex tapes from a beauty queen who answered a question the "wrong way" argument) when the Maine vote is still in the air. Seems to be a tendency. Still the hate talk, at least here, is all coming from the so called happy side. What's up with that?

What is UP with that is that we are sick and tired of being treated as second-class citizens because of the Christianist determination that we are not even worthy to legally celebrate our commitments or to be able to visit our loved ones in the hospital or provide for them after we are gone, but instead our hard-earned money and property can be legally seized by families who in many cases hated us and our spouses when we were still alive. What is UP with that is that we are going to challenge your hateful and unsupported anti-GLBTQ dogma whenever the Christianists presume to know and to say what is right for us and our families.

Now that the Matthew Shepard Act was passed, we have fundamentalist ministers saying they will actively foment hate speech and advocate violence against gay people to test that law. Christianists are royally pissed off that it is now illegal to commit violence against gay people for who we are and who we love.

And spare me the "free speech" bullshit. Your right to say what you want ends where it is possible that my life and that of my hersband--or any human being--may be in harms way because of hate speech by some fundamentalist who has internalised the hatred spread by so-called "men of god".

Here in Arizona, we have a fundamentalist preacher explicitly saying that gay people should be killed. Now, I may not care for Christianists, but I have never called for harm to them, their churches or their families. However I will continue to do what I can to educate people about the lies they spew and the hatred they actively promote towards GLBTQ families.

Matthew, as long as your religion keeps spreading hatred and lies against GLBTQ people and fomenting hate, you may be sure GLBTQ people will be there, working to spread information and challenging the BS that can sugar coat its hatred of us under the guise of "love".

I notice too, that the fundamentalists can find every theological excuse not to obey the other Levitical laws--just go on and on and on about GLBTQ people's sex being an abomination. If you are going to be consistant then keep all the laws or throw them all out. Of course, we'll hear that Jesus abolished the Old Testament laws so none of that has to be observed anymore--EXCEPT WHEN IT COMES TO HOMOSEXUALITY.

My hersband and I harm no one. We do not weaken anyone else's marriage or families. We do not foment hate towards the Christianists--as Pagans, we feel that to foment hate is not only wrong on a moral level but also is disrespectful to the Gods and Goddesses. We are told "if it harms none, do as you will." I was miserable as a Christian, always knowing that because I am a lesbian, I am considered "less than", "sinful", "the other". It is only within Paganism that I have found love and acceptance.

Chris, Dave, and Barbara, the post above mine is indicative that any attempts, no matter how mild and rational, to defend and educate people is seen as hate.

Carrie Prejean is a hypocrite, mouthing Christianist platitudes and more of the Joel Olsteen brand of sugar-coated homophobia, when she has no room to speak on any subject of a moral nature. Remember that pesky little comment of Jesus:"First take the beam from your own eye before looking for the sliver in another's"? She was the darling of the "family values" crowd until it was discovered that she had not only done semi-nude stills but a pornographic video.

If the Christianists want to throw mud at GLBTQ people, perhaps they ought to get their own house in order. The list of those who foment anti-GLBTQ hatred who are caught in sexual scandals of one kind or another is long and growing longer.

Ioan: "notice too, that the fundamentalists can find every theological excuse not to obey the other Levitical laws--just go on and on and on about GLBTQ people's sex being an abomination. If you are going to be consistant then keep all the laws or throw them all out. Of course, we'll hear that Jesus abolished the Old Testament laws so none of that has to be observed anymore--EXCEPT WHEN IT COMES TO HOMOSEXUALITY."

This is a point I've made before but somehow it gets shoved under the carpet. It's either the grace of Jesus Christ, or the law of Moses. I follow Jesus Christ, so for me the answer is obvious.

While the current Pope is just as guilty of it, he used a term I like: cafeteria Christianity. Picking what beliefs you like and throwing the rest out. Sure, Christians live under the grace of Jesus, until a homosexual walks into the room. Then all the Levitical hate comes out to play.

Regarding the rest of your post: I still feel that Joel is a cut above the rest, and while I don't have to agree with his assessment that homosexuality is "not God's best" the rest of his ministry has been a tremendous boon to me and others. My life partner introduced me to him.

But the one question I have for Shawn and others like him (Robertson, Phelps) is this: What happened to that beautiful Christ-like love that Jesus charged his followers with? You're supposed to be showing love to everyone around you, including your enemies. Where's that love? Sorry, not seeing it. That must be part of the Christian cafeteria menu you find unpalatable.

Carol,

That may be YOUR experience, but not all gay people were molested/sexually abused. What about the straights who were molested and are not gay? That is certainly a straw man argument if i've ever heard one! YOUR argument really is lacking, honey!

i have been through the ex-gay/'pray away the gay' programs and find them to be a sham. i feel many who call themselves ex-gay and are married and/or are dating opposite sex do so out of fear of rejection and not being accepted. I think they are 'bullied' into white knuckling it. ic ertainly was for years. Now i am at peace with myself and G-D.

READ THIS Article:

RT @california411: GAY BOYCOTT OF DNC Please RT Take the Pledge: Don't Ask, Don't Give http://cli.gs/eQtUg #Democrats #whitehouse #LGBT #nem

EP

As a researcher for the APA i have to tell you that Carole that you are severely mistaken. It has been concluded that homosexuality is not a choice and that sexual abuse does not dictate sexual orientation what so ever.

However, there is substantial evidence that supports a hypothesis that concludes that homosexuality is innate and prenatal. Which would mean, which has already been proven through simple common sense, that straight people can and do birth gay children.

Just another fact of the day folks.

As a researcher for the APA i have to tell you that Carole that you are severely mistaken. It has been concluded that homosexuality is not a choice and that sexual abuse does not dictate sexual orientation what so ever.

However, there is substantial evidence that supports a hypothesis that concludes that homosexuality is innate and prenatal. Which would mean, which has already been proven through simple common sense, that straight people can and do birth gay children.

Just another fact of the day folks.

Thank you Lily for sharing your experience. While I do not have a mental illness, I also have found the GLBTQ community to be more tolerant and accepting. I have seen too many heterosexists hide their ignorance behind the Bible. On the other hand, I have yet to meet a GLBTQ person who is intolerant of my heterosexuality. 

@Shawn and K Linnemann below: how does same-sex marriage threaten anyone? You and I will be just as heterosexual if and when same-sex marriage is recognized. Look at the states where same-sex marriage is recognized: do you see churches being forced to recognize same-sex unions in a religious sense or heterosexuals being forced to join in same-sex unions? Perhaps, not having grown up with religion, I'm unclear as to how a civil law affects your religious code, but if you ask me the 51% divorce rate in this country is a far greater threat to the institution of marriage. 

@Amanda – I agree completely that the divorce rate in this country is a tragic thing. The cavalier attitude many people have towards marriage is fueled primarily by the extreme individualism that has gripped our society. The attitude has become, "hey, if I'm not happy anymore, we'll just get divorced", regardless of the damage left in the wake of such tragedy. Though it is somewhat tangential to the overarching issue here, if it becomes a reality, I certainly don't expect gay marriages to do any better.

As to whether churches face a threat from gay marriage, the answer is very much yes. There have already been incidences where churches that refused to conduct marriages of same-sex persons have been sued in states where it became legal. I am quite sure we would see an explosion of lawsuits aimed at churches if gay marriage becomes legal across the country. In addition, many faith-based adoption agencies will be forced to shut their doors due to restrictions resulting from the legalization of gay marriage. As much as the gay activist movement wants you to believe this is simply about individual happiness, you should know that our society will be literally turned on its head if gay marriage becomes legal.

"There have already been incidences where churches that refused to conduct marriages of same-sex persons have been sued in states where it became legal."

You're going to need to provide a citation for this. I am cartain that this has never happened, just as Catholic churches have never been sued for refusing to marry divorcees, Synagogs have never been sued for refusing to marry gentiles, and churches in general have never been sued for refusing to marry non-parishoners, if they so choose.

Judges and other *civil* authorities have been sued (or forced to resign) for refusing to marry people who have the legal right, but they are acting as an agent of the government. Religious weddings, on the other hand, are being performed by a private entity and are entirely at the whim of the church. Always have been, and same-sex marriage isn't going to change that.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/41478

Shawn,

A couple of problems with this link.  One, it's from CNSNews, which is so far right it makes Fox News look like The Nation.

Second, you fail to mention that the New Jersey property in this case was actually a PUBLIC PROPERTY, not a church property.

Thanks.

In addition to Michael says, this is not about them refusing to marry a same-sex couple, but them refusing to rent property to a same-sex couple. Can you find any reference to a church being sued for refusing to *marry* a same-sex couple, or would you rather admit that you just made that up?

@Michael – Alright so you don't like that website. Here is NPR's version of the story: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486340

Also, it is clear in the article that the property was owned by the group.

@Ross – I didn't make anything up. I just provided you an example of two Lesbians suing a church organization because they refused to allow them to use their private property for their ceremony.

Shawn: You claimed that "There have already been incidences where churches that refused to conduct marriages of same-sex persons have been sued in states where it became legal". When asked to back this up, you cite this particular case.

However, the church in question did not refuse to conduct a same-sex wedding (they weren't asked to do so); they refused to allow a same-sex couple to use their land, which is an entirely different issue, covered by entirely different laws. Churches, like inns and hotels, are public houses and have a legal duty of hospitality, which the defaulted on in this case. However, they don't have to provide any services, and had they actually refused to perform a marriace ceremony, they would have been well within their legal rights.

This does not back up your claim that churches are being sued for refusing to perform same-sex marriages, any more than it proves that proves that churches are being sued for refusing to ordain homosexual preachers.

Ross, whether or not the minister was asked in that particular case is irrelevant. A church should not be forced to allow ANYONE to use their facility. It is private property. And consecrated by those who purchased and maintain the facility for their purposes of worship and/or community. To force them to "accommodate" a same-sex commitment ceremony or marriage is an absolute affront to the right of religious freedom, not to mention a violation of their right to privacy. Private entities, churches and otherwise, should not be forced to participate in things that violate their religious conscience whether that is in the conscription of their person or property. When I said, "churches that refused to conduct marriages of same-sex persons have been sued", it was not meant to mean exclusively that the pastor or priest would be sued personally (though that may very well happen), but that churches would be sued—and indeed that has happened.

Shawn: I'll repeat: You claimed that churches were being sued for refusing to *perfom* ceremonies. You've provided no evidence to support this, insisting instead that refusing to rent out property for someone else to perform a ceremony is the same thing. It is not.

The church is not required to rent out their property for any purpose, you're right, but they're not allowed to discriminate in how they do rent it out; as public houses (which doesn't stop them being private property), they have a legal burden of hospitality that must be non-discriminatory. Just as a hotel can't refuse to rent rooms to people because of the colour of their skin, and a restaurant can't refuse to feed someone just because they're Jewish, the church can't refuse to accomodate people just because of their sexual orientation. They had frequently made the property availably for civil weddings, and so by refusing to do so purely because the celebrants were a same-sex couple was in clear breech of their duty of hospitality.

It's perfectly reasonable to question whether or not the church should be under this duty, but regardless, that is orthagonal to your original claim, which continues to go unsupported. If you like, I can point out that your claim was made in the plural ("incidents", "churches", "states") implying that this was not the only datapoint you were working from; perhaps if you can provide us with details of the others, they'll turn out to actually involve churches being sued for refusing to perform ceremonies.

This case has nothing to do with whether or not the church was willing to *perform* a same-sex marriage (as you claimed), as even the most cursory reading of the article would reveal. No church has ever been sued for refusing to perform any wedding, for any reason or for none at all, and this is not going to change with the coming of same-sex marriage.

Well, I actually used the word "conduct", but that would be quibbling... look Ross, take a deep breath and accept the fact that gays are suing. They're suing states, they're suing cities, high schools, doctors, photographers, even the Boy Scouts... the list goes on and on. In fact there is so much "gay suing" going on your own leaders called an audible: Lambda Legal: Make Change, Not Lawsuits

At the bottom of the NPR article there are multiple examples of gays suing religious or religiously affiliated people and organizations because they declined to render services based on their religious conscience. That is the point I'm making, and I can see it is on point since it hit such a hot button with you.

Right, you claimed that churches were being sued for refusing to conduct weddings, and as evidence, you cited a case where a church was *not* sued for refusing to conduct weddings. Are you suggesting that it's quibbling to point out the difference between performing a marriage ceremony, and renting out land to someone?

You're correct that people making shit up and lying about it is a "hot button issue" of mine. We both know that no church has ever been sued for refusing to conduct a wedding, be it a Catholic with divorcees, or what have you. It's obvious that same-sex marriage isn't going to change that.

You're right that homosexuals sue when their rights are infringed, but I fail to see how that's evidence of a big, scary conspiracy, given that women, blacks, Christians and even heterosexuals have also been known to sue when they're discriminated against. However, the right to be married by the religious figure of your choice is not, never has been and never will be a legally actionably right.

Your claim was false. At this stage, it's been demonstrated to be false to such a degree that I can no longer extend an assumption of good faith, and must instead assume that you're deliberately lying. Otherwise, you'd be able to provide examples of "incidences where churches that refused to conduct marriages of same-sex persons have been sued", right?

Ross, assume whatever you wish. And frankly, all that has been demonstrated so far is that you're the type of person willing to cut off your nose to spite your face.

Perhaps my statement was not as precisely phrased as it could have been and I should have said "churches that refused to allow marriages of same-sex persons to be conducted".

Or perhaps you want to sidetrack the discussion from the point of my original argument which is that,

"As much as the gay activist movement wants you to believe this is simply about individual happiness, you should know that our society will be literally turned on its head if gay marriage becomes legal."

which is obviously a valid and legitimate concern when we see that already many religious organizations are facing lawsuits from gays seeking to enforce their "rights" to fill-in-the-blank over and against the right of religious freedom.

Next time you wonder why Protestants, Mormons, Catholics, Jews, and even Muslims, are willing to stop bickering with each other and confront the very real threat of radical homosexual activism in this country, just go back and read that NPR article again: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486340

Shawn, what about the churches that do perform same-sex marriages? The non-establishment clause of the First Amendment asserts that the state may not prefer one set of religious beliefs over another, be it theism over atheism, Christianity over Judaism or Islam, or certain branches of Christianity over others. In defining marriage as between a man and a woman, the United States is defying the First Amendment by 1) Choosing the religious definition of marriage over the secular one (where marriage is a civil union and a lifelong commitment between two consenting adults), thereby endorsing religion over secularism and 2) Siding with the more fundamentalist Christian churches over the more moderate ones over the definition of marriage. So in a sense, legalizing same-sex marriage is about preserving the religious liberties of the churches that do perform same-sex marriage.

Also, if you're interested on what international law has to say about this issue Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states basically that every individual has the right to marry whom they want. Nowhere does it say that their partner must be of the opposite sex. It is so easy for the US to get self-righteous and claim that we are superior to other countries in respecting human rights. There are indisputably horrible human rights violations happening in the Middle East and other regions of the world, many of them directed specifically against gays. But in order to make its advocacy of democracy and human rights ring with sincerity as opposed to hypocrisy the US must look in the mirror and consider sweeping its own doorstep from time to time. Marriage between consenting adults is a human right, and human rights know no sexual orientation. 

You might also want to check out this link

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

Amanda, I might agree with you if Congress had only recently decided the nature of marriage, and had done so based on competing arguments from two religious factions. But the point is, they never even debated the nature of marriage—it simply was what is was as understood through centuries of tradition.

Now that the debate is on, the question is why re-define marriage now? The social benefits of committed heterosexual marriages are clear: children do best when raised by two biological parents. 

So, what are the social benefits of same-sex marriage? And, what would the consequences to society be if marriage were re-defined?

As I pointed out above, we are already seeing consequences: a Christian photographer was sued who declined to provide services for two Lesbians. And she lost! How obscene is that? What the law is saying is that she is effectively compelled to provide services for an event that violates her religious and moral conscience. Even the military provides an out for conscientious objectors. Not even our national security trumps an individuals' right to conscience. And yet, two Lesbians' desire for commitment ceremony photos from a specific photographer does?

This, and the lack of evidence that there is any real benefit to society make this change, at best, imprudent.

"The social benefits of committed heterosexual marriages are clear: children do best when raised by two biological parents."

And what about all of us adoptees? Would we have been better off with our genetic donors? Huh? And what about the kids who spend their whole lives waiting for their forever-home, only to hit 18 and be told, "you're on your own, kid." Huh?

A stable, loving home is not defined by the genders of the parents, asshat.

"The social benefits of committed heterosexual marriages are clear: children do best when raised by two biological parents."

And what about all of us adoptees? Would we have been better off with our genetic donors? Huh? And what about the kids who spend their whole lives waiting for their forever-home, only to hit 18 and be told, "you're on your own, kid." Huh?

A stable, loving home is not defined by the genders of the parents, asshat.

Ok Shawn i am calling you out on that one. There is no evidence that states that children do best with biological parents or a mother "and" a father. The studies you keep pulling out of the air, or from sights like NOM and NARTH, are not based in science or in social science, but in opinion and belief.

Most of the evidence you refer to is a distorted study that used only single parent households. What you are doing some how seems to connect single parent households to gay family households. It has been concluded that children do best in a two person household, however the gender and sexual orientation does not matter, no does the biological components of the children to the parents. It has also been concluded that children can do equally well in a single parent household as long as that parent is supportive and nurturing. (Judith Stacy, PHd.)

Amen! Thank you for your post k. Linnemann

@ Lily Strange – Thanks for pointing that out Lily. I misspoke. MPD and Schizophrenia are two separate disorders. And I'm sorry to hear you haven't been treated well by Christians due to your own mental illness. I would hope every Christian would have compassion and understanding for those afflicted by mental illnesses, but I know that doesn't always happen.

"God loves you the way you are, to be sure.  But He also loves you too much to let you stay that way."

Lemme see, your "god" loves me just as I am, but wants to make me change who I am.

Yeah.... no.

When you love someone -just as they are-, you don't try to change them to suit what -you- want them to be. That's not love. It's abuse.

"God loves you the way you are, to be sure.  But He also loves you too much to let you stay that way."

Lemme see, your "god" loves me just as I am, but wants to make me change who I am.

Yeah.... no.

When you love someone -just as they are-, you don't try to change them to suit what -you- want them to be. That's not love. It's abuse.

K Linneman, you say "Believing the Bible does not make one homophobic.  The very idea is ridiculous!  Homophobia is defined as 'fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.'  Just because a person thinks homosexuality is morally wrong does not mean they fear or have contempt for homosexuals."  (I corrected that last word for you because I knew what you meant.)

Two things: 1. If Bible-humpers do not have fear of or contempt for gays and lesbians, can you please explain why they would spend millions upon millions of dollars campaigning for ballot measures to take away their rights to get married?  I'm quite sure many people gave much more money to this cause than they have ever given to charities to feed and clothe the poor.  All in order to protect marriage from... uh... people who want to get married.  Anyone who donated to anti-gay marriage campaigns or who voted in favor of gay marriage bans is, by definition, homophobic.  If you're not afraid of, or in contempt of, gay people, then why do you care whether the word marriage is available to them or not?

2.  Since when did being Christian mean that you ignore what Jesus said and didn't say, in favor of other parts of the Bible?  Jesus never said one word about homosexuality while he walked the earth.  That's God incarnate.  He said a lot of things, and never said one word about something that is supposedly a huge abomination.  I don't care what kind of twisted logic one uses, but if one is truly a Christian (as opposed to a "Bible-onian") then there is NO BASIS FOR BELIEVING THAT GOD WANTS HOMOSEXUALS TO BE ANYTHING OTHER THAN WHAT HE CREATED THEM AS.

I know this must be confusing, so let me repeat it:  Jesus was God incarnate. Jesus never said anything condemning homosexuals.  Therefore, Christians either need to accept that God does not consider homosexuality a sin, or they need to admit that they are not really Christians, but are just pretending to follow the teachings of Christ.

Am I saying Joel Osteen is not a good Christian?  Absolutely.  Calling yourself a Christian does not make it so.  Now you can go back to casting stones at someone.  Run along. 

David Santucci: "I know this must be confusing, so let me repeat it:  Jesus was God incarnate. Jesus never said anything condemning homosexuals."

Not only that, but Jesus was approached by a Roman centurion who begged Him to heal his servant. Jesus used the centurion as an example of faith because he told Jesus that he didn't have to come into his house to do it, but that He could do it from where he stood.

The great thing is, if you look into Roman culture of the time, the servant boy would have been the centurion's lover, and Jesus would have known that. If God found that kind of thing to be evil, then Jesus would have told that centurion to kiss off and burn in hell. Instead He chided the disciples by saying "This guy has more faith than you" and then to the centurion "He's been healed. Go to him."

So much for "God hates fags."

Oh, and there's also a really hot scene where the "disciple that Jesus loved" had his head on Jesus's lap, and then while he talked to Jesus, crawled up Jesus's body and rested his head on Jesus's shoulder.

When the others confronted the Messiah about about the disciple in question, Jesus told them that it wasn't any of their business whether he was with Him or not.

Mike, very interesting. Although I know about Roman culture, I had never thought of that passage in this context.

I can't believe that this K Linnemann's fundie bullshit went unanswered properly here, so I am gonna try:

NO K Linnemann. You fundie hyopocrites need to learn to STAY AWAY from our gay lives, rights and interests, simple as that!

Nobody says that any sexual orientation (wheteher homo or hetero) is a God's sole plan for humankind.

Anybody can think of homosexuality whatever they want (and we heard you how you disapprove of homosexuality- you're heard ok- but enough already!! why should we care?) But, you antigay heterosexists and hypocrites you need to LEARN TO STAY AWAY from our gay lives, rights and interests! We gays do NOT want your love, your compassion, your understanding- nothing, we DEMAND THAT YOU QUIT INTERFERRING NEGATIVELY in our lives, that you QUIT abusing freedom of speech and democracy to impose your HETEROSEXISTIC ANTIGAY wishes and whims curtailing and limiting our lives, rights and interests! How dare you antigay bigots so capriciously negativelly affect our lives?? We gays are NOT interested in your hetero lives, therefore you heterosexists need to QUIT being interested negatively in our gay lives! 

So, which part don't you still understand, K Linnemann??

I realy don't understand why does Change.org allow antigay trolls such as K Linnemann, Shawn and so on to pollute our corner?? Are we liable to put up with them so to .... what??

As to the topic- ha, nothing new. another televangelist hypocrite bites the dust. who cares?

As an openly gay Christian, I believe that we help our cause  by being polite. It's obvious that you're dealing with some deep wounds. Unfortunately hate and meanness is espoused in the name of all religions all the time. But of course that doesn't mean that those action represent all of the members of those groups.

If we interpret Scripture in the context in which it was written, I believe that we do so knowing that the word “homosexuality” did not even exist in Paul’s day and that he had no concept or understanding of, and was not referring to, committed long term monogamous same gender relationships.

Certainly Paul was, as you point out, a Pharisee. And it was to the Pharisees (and all of us) that Jesus was speaking when He warned about relying on our hermeneutic for understanding the law:

“You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang ALL the law and the prophets.”

This is my hermeneutic, as Jesus said, “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

I believe that the problem with relying on our understanding as our hermeneutic is that, as Paul says in I Corinthians 13:12, “For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known.”

I don’t see Scripture as an unchanging entity, but as the living Word, most clearly revealed to us through Jesus.

When we through our hermeneutic try to limit Scripture to an unchanging understanding, we take away the Bible’s divinity, which knows no limits.

Perhaps the quote that “the Bible is a field guide which was never intended to replace the field” is appropriate here, because as Jesus and Paul reveal, love, not knowledge, is our lens.

K Linnemann is incorrect. As I wrote above, the Bible does NOT say that homosexuality is not God's plan for people, anymore than the Qur'an advocates holy war.

Those are misinterpretations by fundamentalists in both religions.

I just want to say Thank you to great replies written by David Santucci! while I was writing my reply to an insolent comment written by K Linnemann, I didn't see that David Santucci has in meantime written his great replies. As well as to Mike Conway and Burton Bagby-Grose.

Exactly so, Burton Bagby Grose! 

I just want to say that I do not normally come on and comment on Gay Rights issues.  I use this website for other causes and normally do not even look at this stuff.  But when I got the email about people attacking Joel Osteen for simply stating his beliefs I felt I had to comment.  You are all so angry at Christians for believing differently than you.  I'm sorry.  But it's not OK to bash people for having a different opinion than you.  That is all I was trying to say.  You want marriage but you won't even allow others to have a different point of view from your own.  That is what scares Christians.  Not your lifestyle, the fact that if you are this rotten to us now, when your marriage becomes legal, we are afraid our rights will start to be thrown out the window.  We came to this country to have religious freedom and more and more we feel that is being threatened.  I'm just trying to be candid bc I believe candid is more respectful.  It's good to talk about these things.  I didn't mean to make anyone feel like I was taking over their corner of the website.  I will not interfere anymore after this post.

I would like to reply to the obviously intelligent Burton Bagby-Grose. 
You say you are a gay Christian.  That is NOT an oxymoron to me, for the record.  You are my brother.  You clearly believe in Christ and the fact that He died on the cross and rose from the dead as a sacrifice for our sins.  You, and many others, make the point that Jesus never made any reference to homosexuality specifically.   That is a true statement.  However, Christ makes reference to the Old Testament often and even used it after He rose from the grave and defeated death to prove the reality of His purpose to His diciples.  How do you accept those things from the Old Testament and not the things spoken about homosexuality?  I believe that they are still true because of their context. 

I have struggled with the idea of homosexuality and wondered that if people can be born this way then how can it be wrong?  I want it NOT to be wrong.  I hate that this whole misery of right and wrong w/in the topic even exists.  It's not easy to be a Christian and know that people hurt when you say it's wrong.  But I have to hold fast to and w/in the foundations and boundaries of our faith. It hurts my heart that it is this way.  There is no anger or hatred in my post.  There was much hatred and anger toward my post.  I can see why.  I imagine I'd feel much the same.  When we look at something difficult like this, we have ask ourselves, what is the fruit of it?  God bless you.

P.S. Joel Osteen is a tool.  Many Christians don't take him seriously anyway.

K... you state this

"Believing the Bible does not make one homophobic. Just because a person thinks homosexuality is morally wrong does not mean they fear or have contempt for homophobics."

I respond by this

Believing in the bible does not make one a racist, or sexist. Just because a person thinks that "Negros" and "women" are morally wrong in their fight to accepted by society, doesn't mean that those those men of god dont have fear and contempt for racist and sexist.

FYI racism and sexism strangle held this country by using christian theology to justify these backwards minded individuals. We now call out sexist and racist for who they are... yet we still have trouble calling out "herterosexist" for who they are. I agree Osteen is not a homophobe he is a heterosexist like you, who believe that using the bible justifies dehumanizing normal human beings and acting, believing, and speaking that they are superior to my brothers and sisters, just because one is straight.

I am sorry but if you dont like being called a homophobe, a heterosexist, or a hater, then stop being one. And if you dont like your religious leaders to be called such then demand them to stop being such. It is as simple as that. Time to catch on to social progession as painful as it might be to ones simple minded mentality.

I thought God created us and created everyone equal but definitely not the same in order that we evolve and learn from this to accept and even appreciate eachother's differences, a pretty boring world if we were all the same !

Oh prejudice is so hard to see and so hard to overcome. Just scrolling down through the comments it's sickening.

It's disappointing that The View didn't call this out immediately. Why is it that everyone's so afraid to debate a preacher? All preachers don't think alike so obviously some of them are wrong.

He cherry-picked and interpreted what he wanted to justify being rich, so of course he did the same to justify his own prejudice.

I usually don't comment on these issues, but I want to tell a story of my youth that made me see the light.

I had a co-worker and friend who was Gay and I, in my ignorance at the time, asked him "Why do you chose to live in a sinful life style?".

His reply was a wake up call. He Said, "Ron, first I am a Puerto Rican, which makes me a second class citizen to begin with, and in my own culture, any male Homosexual is seen as the worst of anyone, making me not a third but more like a 5th or 6th class citizen. Do you honestly believe I would CHOSE this life style? Do you really think I would chose the abuse I must live with?"

After this smack in the face, and then seeing a baby born with both male and female genitals, I saw that this isn't there choice to make. It is genetic and they have no choice. God doesn't punish the INNOCENT. Even in the animal world there are recorded homosexuals. Two, mate for life, penguins studied come to mind.

It is sad that you feel that way because I can tell you I have seen things occur that can only be explained as a "miracle".  In 23 years as a Nurse I have been witness to healings that are completely beyond any explaination other than some form of higher power. Tumors that disappear; cancers that disappear without expaination and other healings performed by "believers in prayer".

So call it God or whatever else you chose, but something out there does intervene, at times, to cause miracles to occur.

The belief in God also helps greatly for those suffering in pain in coping with that pain. That same belief that there is a higher power has helped addicts to break that monkey off their back and begin a new life.

So to say it is a danger, disregards the positive that occurs from that faith.

I don't disagree that religion has been and is used to cause great harm. But I believe that those who use it that way will regret it someday.

I think the problem is that these people DO NOT want to leave us alone because most of those who post here are fanatics. They believe that their belief in their deity gives them the right to judge and control the rest of society. This is the bottom line for this trolling. If nothing else, they seek to get us to expend our energy answering their minutae.

For me, the bottom line is that this is NOT a Christian country. We ALL have rights, not just followers of some book written by Bronze Age pastoralists. But they not only want non-Christians to follow their outdated theology but they want to make those Christian churches which are open and affirming toe the Christianist line. Yes, bigots, some Christians have opened their hearts and churches to us, in FULL communion.

I call Shawn Hooper's claim that the churches would be sued if gay marriage becames nationally legal and available BOGUS. Anyone that tried to sue a church would be laughed out of court by any judge who understands the Constitution and jurisprudence. But the Christianists claim this to force us to put such juvenile nonsense in any propositions or pending legislation.

I wish I were wealthier, I would move to Canada because they have not let the fundies hijack their society and government. If only this country would do the same. At least if the government feels the Constitution allows hate speech (and what those like Anderson in Arizona are advocating IS hate speech..at least I would consider saying that GLBTQ people should be murdered or executed is hate speech) then take away the tax exemption that those who meddle in politics currently enjoy. Do it church by church basis so that the innocent are not punished, but start yanking the tax-exempt status of those like the Roman Catholic Church and the Mormons who stick their noses in where it is not wanted or needed. If they feel they are entitled to meddle, then let them pay for the priviledge.

GLBTQ people are sick and tired of the Christianist bullshit. We don't give an airborne copulation what you think of us or our lives. Stay out of our lives and stop trying to deny us any and all rights you can! Believe what you want...I submit that your right to believe stops when you attempt to use that belief to interfere with my rights or in my life and my marriage.

Make no mistake: these people want us back in our closets so that their comfort zone is not disturbed and so that they can go on believing their little fable that everyone is born straight and that teh gays CHOOSE to be discriminated against and possibly beaten or killed. How many times have I read "Oh, go back in your closets!" in comment sections of online newspapers. Failing completely recriminising GLBTQ people they will fight every right we do have. Well neither my spouse nor I are going to be held hostage to the Christianists' hatred. We will live our lives like the normal wonderful spiritual and physical beings that we are.

Interestingly I know people that don't like the idea of homosexuality but accept that we have rights, just like the rest of society. I have been told, "Well, if we deny homosexuals civil rights, what is next?" Civil Rights are more fragile than people think ( just think of the assault on a woman's right to choose in the House version of the current health care legislation) and we need to fight together to preserve them. Of course, I'm sure the Christianists would love to put women back in what they consider their proper place--kinder, kirche, kuche, anyone?

We don't go to Christianist boards to troll...it would be nice if they didn't come over here, but that is expecting too much human decency out of them. I suggest that we not "feed" them. That way they talk only to themselves.

Ioan Lightoller:

I find this funny, “We don't go to Christianist boards to troll...it would be nice if they didn't come over here, …” I merely followed a link from a newsletter that is sent to my mailbox without my asking for it. Maybe because I live in San Francisco the authors of the newsletter thought I would support their agenda. Whatever. You have to blame them for letting me know about this blog.

I really don't care how you found your way here. This is a gay board. Stop harassing us and go back with your bible thumpers and complain amongst yourself how Christians are persecuted. You show your hatred and contempt for us in every sentence you right. No one here gives a damn about your command of Koine Greek...you are more impressed with yourself than anyone else.

The only way you will ever tolerate GLBTQ people is if we all shut up, quit fighting for our rights and go back into the closet. Well, that's not happening. We will fight your and your fundie bigot allies in every legal way possible.

I laugh that the Christians whine about persecution. No one cares what you believe. What we do care about is when you want to put that belief into action to limit the right of other taxpaying Americans.

Natalie, don't allow anger caused by the ignorance of a few to ruin the good person inside of you. People that argue with you are only doing so to feel better about themselves because they need to feel better about themselves. It comes from their own insecurities and you can't allow their issues to tear you apart. Love yourself, because you are very lovable. We all have those parts of us that are lovable and those that are irritable to some. Simply, love yourself, and always look for ways to be better than those who use hurt to make themselves feel better about themselves. You don't have to feel pain, if you keep in mind, that we can only be hurt by allowing others that power over us.

Sometimes though Ron it only takes a few individuals to allow the darkness to take control to make so serious social change. Malcolm X was a violent leader and he knew that what he did would be used by King as a bargaining chip to get his people their rights.

If some people wish to allow the darkness consume them then let those like me give them the means to vent their anger in a productive and useful manner that will be useful into furthering social progression for all.

You always need a spark and a little bit of oxygen to get the fire started. People like me are that spark, this anger and darkness filling people from social oppression is the oxygen. It has past the time for when we should have ignited this vessel and shown our anger for all the usurpation's, all the murders, and all the injustices that have soaked itself in our blood. Let us not wait one more second second for rights and liberties that were owed to our brothers and sisters yesterday.

Careful. Before you post something like this, you should first double check the meaning of the word "meek".

Why should he have to confrom to your beliefs? Isnt that a violation of religious freedom?

It sure is?

Anton can believe in his religion in any way he wants, just as you expressed with Osteen can with his. Why are you being hypocritial now?

I do want to say that when I was coming out, I read a book by a gay Christian group explaining the story of Jesus and the Centurion. Read in that way, it is a beautiful story of love and acceptance. I am a pagan and that story can bring tears to my eyes.

I suspect that Jesus knew the centurion and his pais were in a gay relationship, but yet what he said was that he had not found so great a faith, even in Israel.

Hate speech?  Dude, take a Xanax. Joel Osteen can believe whatever he wants to believe. But please, people are allowed to challenge public personas when they say anti-gay things like "homosexuality is not God's best." I'd love to see Pastor Osteen back this statement up with some theological context, outside of quoting willy-nilly from the Bible.

But don't get me wrong.  I "love" and "welcome" Pastor Joel Osteen. I just tend to think that ministers who warp the gospel into a profit-making venture aren't "God's best."

Barbara:

“So 'homophobe' refers to an irrational fear of persons attracted to persons of the same gender.” This is what I find so silly, in as much as most who dislike homosexuality have no fear, let alone an irrational fear, of it. What they don’t like is having it shoved down their throats, with the insistence that they must change their beliefs to one that claims that homosexuality is normative and natural. The blow-back is that people then react in anger at this intolerance by homosexual activists.

“How is Mr. Jones lying, and why are you calling this article 'hate speech' when all Mr. Jones did was point out what Joel Osteen said, which is, "What I believe the scriptures teach is that homosexuality is not God's best".” Go back, reread the article, that’s not all Mr. Jones wrote. If he had limited himself to that statement, that would have been a statement concerning a simple fact. But Mr. Jones added much to that statement. It is in that addition that he comes out with his lies and hate speech.

“This is a progressive site, and the purpose of it is to point out ignorance and injustice.” Exactly! Justice!! That is the hallmark of what I strive for in my interpersonal relationships. You can’t have justice based on lies. It’s a lie when a woman passes herself off as purer than the driven snow, only to have made steamy sex tapes in her past. It’s a lie for a governor to cheat on his wife and run off to South America to his paramour. And it’s a lie to accuse one of having irrational fears and hatred when he doesn’t.

Justice! What about justice for underage sex slaves brought into this country? Which Obama’s ACORN was filmed trying to facilitate? What about justice for poor people who have suffered because of the manipulations of rich people, a good example being George Soros? Another example being Nike shoes? Where is justice for women in Moslem countries, even here in the U.S., who can be murdered in ‘honor killings’ if somehow they don’t measure up? In view of these injustices and more, it’s hard to get worked up about people who merely have their feelings ruffled because others disagree with their actions. Justice!

It’s not hate to disagree. It is hate to lie about others, or worse such as physical attacks. It is hate to impose one’s beliefs on others without allowing the tolerance to others to disagree. It is hate to impute hate to others when there is no evidence (other than disagreement) that such a charge is justified.

You know, Richard, if you don't like what GLBTQ people have to say, don't check out thenGay Rights blogs.

What do you expect us to do? Are we supposed ton wait forever while those who hate or disapprove of us get to vote on our lives and our rights? Their vote impacts our lives negatively. All marriage equality would mean is for us to have the same right as married heterosexuals. You live as many of us have lived...in my case, over fourty years and see how you would feel.

Nice to know that we are supposed to sit up and beg nicely and then we might get a crumb or two thrown in our direction. Nice.

To Richard: Sorry, but Mr. Jones was not lying. What he did do was make inferences to what Osteen had said, and these 'other' remarks were obvious to most of us. You totally misunderstood. His speech was not hateful. Your attitude toward his remarks, which were based on actual statements, shows that  you consider other people's opinions to be hateful, even when they point out obvious truths. I too, took Osteen's comments to be extremely negative and rather hateful.

Barbara:

Apparently you did not reread Mr. Jones’ original article, so let me quote:

“…for the most part, his interpretation of religious scripture is a candy-coated pill that leaves a sour taste of homophobia at its core.” There’s that use of that silly, pejorative term. If Joel Osteen accurately reads the Bible, then his disapproval of homosexuality is neither irrational nor a fear. To say that it is an irrational fear is a lie. (BTW I know more koiné Greek than most theologians, so don’t try to snowjob me.)

“God's best is apparently straight beauty queens who make lewd sex tapes, or Republican politicians who cheat on their spouses and bill the government for intercontinental travel to hang out with the mistress.” I give Mr. Jones the credit that he is not stupid nor ignorant, which leads to the conclusion that this is a deliberate lie. My last message already referenced these examples.

“And saying that is a slippery slope to justifying the type gross injustices -- from hate crimes to workplace discrimination -- that happen to LGBT people on a day-to-day basis.” Another lie. It would take an article to show all the ways this is a lie.

Telling lies about someone in order to incite hate against him is hate speech.

If you truly are interested in pursuing justice as you claimed earlier, then you would also speak out against hate speech, no matter who utters it.

As for Joel Osteen, talk about sugar coating! What the New Testament says about homosexuality makes it an act of love to tell a homosexual to repent of his homosexuality. That is not an irrational fear, but a sober, logical conclusion. It is an act of hate to keep silent. And if a person speaks out because of love, there is no way he can support injustice in any form.

so you Mr. Ortiz are bothered by Michael Jones's mere stating of facts that that beauty queen did make lewd tapes all the while pretending to be oh so moral, that your republican politicians are regularly violating everything they preach (real straight men don't have to worry 'bout nothin', they can afford to fuck around with whores, extracurricular activities, while on taxpayers' funds, no problem,  huh??)....? so, Michael Jones should'nt have stated those FACTS about you hypocritical right-wingers "oh so moral family values christians" just not to upset you, Mr. Ortiz??

btw., you Mr. Ortiz say that you were sent an invitation through a newsletter (if it's credible anything you say) to join this discyussion? well, guess what- disregard it! errors happen, so just- GO AWAY, Mr. Ortiz-you troll!

“so you Mr. Ortiz are bothered by Michael Jones's mere stating of facts that that beauty queen did make lewd tapes all the while pretending to be oh so moral, that your republican politicians are regularly violating everything they preach (real straight men don't have to worry 'bout nothin', they can afford to fuck around with whores, extracurricular activities, while on taxpayers' funds, no problem,  huh??)....?” Not at all. If anything, these actions are worse because of the hypocrisy involved.

What is a lie is to claim that those who oppose homosexuality have no problem with these sort of actions, as Mr. Jones did in his article. And because this lie was told in a way to incite hatred against a person, it becomes hate speech.

Are you bothered by my calling one of your spokespersons a hate monger and proving it from his own words, so much so that you call me a troll?

If you truly were supportive of justice and tolerance, shouldn’t you rather denounce any liar who incites hatred, no matter who he is?

@ richard ortiz, listen you man:

you're either so stupid or capriciously predisposed to have a nerve to equalize a human sexual variation of sexuality such as homosexuality with your heterosexual immoralities such as adultery, prostitutions, pornography.... that abound in your heterosexual world. if you're against these immoralities that abound in your breeders', pardon, heterosexistic world, then why don't you get busy moralize to your world? you have plenty of job to do! what're you doing here? bashing some gays? what else...... 

so, get it in your thick heterosexistic head that a human sexual orientation (be it hetero, homo or bi) is one thing on one side as opposed to immoralities that any people of any sex. orientation can do on the other side. 'cause nobody is saying that just because many heterosexuals commit immoralities (and they do as you can see if you wanna see it) that all heterosexuals are necessarily immoral. Therefore, neither you mr. ortiz should dare to say that all homosexuals are immoral just because some might be. By the way, we moral homosexuals are concerned with immoralities within homosexual world and are fighting to promote decency and fair morality. You heterosexistic troll, as I said, have way, way more job to do to be concerned with plentiful immoralities that abound in your heteropsexual world if you're concerned with them, which you obviously unfortunately aren't but you only lie how supposedly you are.

I am only surprised and disappointed that this site is stilll allowing homohateful trolls such as richard ortiz, felicia....  to harrass gay people here. 'Til when we'd have to put up with this bullshit here??

My full support for Ioan Lightoller!

I appologize to this site for being provoked by constant antigay hahrrassments that are (I don't know why and how) allowed on this supposedly pro-gay and progressive site.

As I tried yesterday to as shorter as possible to describe in one of my comments, I have really borne a quite heavy brunt of societal homohatred and heterosexism in my young life. Many wounds have been inflicted on me by antigays, whether in my country of origin or here in Pittsburgh, PA, USA. Therefore, please try to understand that I can NOT always bear these spiteful antigay attacks when I see them. As I said, discussions are fine, but certain antigay commentators here are way out of reality and reason to be discussed with. They are obviously hired provocators who have their goal- to bash and abuse gays whenever, whichever way they can and want. Our generosity and tolerance toward these antigays have to have the limits! Enough is enough!  

Velibor:

I now know why you took such offense to my pointing out that Mr. Jones had written some hate speech in his posting: you practice the same intolerance and hate. Your words have revealed that hate for the world to see. You too spout lies to incite hate.

The reason I point this out is because I think hate speech negatively effects the causes of justice and tolerance.

If you want to see an example of my “gay bashing”, look at my comment concerning the governor of Road Island vetoing a bill.

Velibor, the sad thing is that these people do not care one whit about your suffering. They likely feel a gay person has whatever coming to them--we don't count and never have.

If fundies are so damned interested in heterosexual morality, why don't you hear about it? Nope got the gays to whip and it brings in big money.

As I have said before, unless we are doing anything except making nice and letting the bigots walk all over us, we are being hateful. None of these people are interested in hearing how marriage equality would help families...because the families that would be helped are GLBTQ families. We don't count to them...we have never counted...and we never will.

Don't any of you fundies bother spouting about how you "love" us. Your "love" is condescending and phony and any GLBTQ person worth his or her salt will reject it.

We have expressed a desire that you leave here and leave us in peace...we know how you feel and what your opinion of us and our lives is. You make it abundantly clear in many ways. Let me make this abundantly clear: we are not going away and you are not going to convert us. None of us need what you are offering. What we need is for you to GTFO this blog.

Ioan:

You ask, “If fundies are so damned interested in heterosexual morality, why don't you hear about it?” Two reasons: 1) you aren’t listening and 2) those who practice heterosexual immorality aren’t out in the streets demanding that people accept their sexual practices as normative and natural. Those who make the most noise will get the most attention.

“As I have said before, unless we are doing anything except making nice and letting the bigots walk all over us, we are being hateful.” This is a lie designed to arouse hate, hence hate speech. For the most part, people just don’t care who is homosexual and who is not. And with the exception of a few bigots, almost everyone opposes unjust violence against innocent people, it doesn’t matter who the victim is.

If you truly want marriage equality in such a way that it does not result in oppression of those who disagree, is not the best way to repeal all governmental recognition of all marriages? It’s unjust that one view of marriage derived from one group is imposed on the whole society through governmental fiat. Other practices, not just LGBT but also polygyny and polyandry as practiced in some Asian countries have been impacted with unnecessary pain among immigrants. So instead of trying to impose your will on an unwilling public, which only arouses opposition, why not instead remove the threat of governmental oppression by taking the government out of the picture entirely? Won’t you get a lot further towards eliminating this injustice?

Tolerance means to give people the space to disagree. Many homosexual activists are intolerant bigots unnecessarily making enemies of people who otherwise would be willing to work together. Instead of spouting off hate speech, would it not be better to look for creative ways to eliminate injustice?

Maybe if we allowed marriage for ALL ADULTS who can enter into CONSENTUAL agreements, we would not be having this problem. The problem is the Christianists insisting that their "one man, one woman" model be the only legal sort of marriage. This is the problem and you are being disingenuous to deny it, Mr. Ortiz.

ANYTHING we say to counter your bigotry is classified as a lie and as hate speech. We aren't the ones spreading crap such as people being allowed to marry animals or children if marriage equality is enacted. We are not the ones saying that GLBTQ people already have full rights--that they are perfectly free to marry a person of the opposite sex. This is the bullshit I hear spouted by bigots on a regular basis. You and your ilk are simply determined that GLBTQ people simply ought not to be allowed to legally marry. Dress it up anyway you wish and that is still the truth of the matter.

And my word, we can't even have a Pride Parade without you and your ilk saying that we are forcing our sexuality down everyone's throat. That's rich when it is straight sexuality that is pushed down our throats in ways big and small 24/7. The sad fact is that you and people like you would prefer that GLBTQ people simply not exist.

You are fooling no one on this board with your calls for tolerance--the tolerance is one-way only. We have to tolerate you but anything we say in our defense is branded lying hate speech. Of course you would see it that way...anything that goes against your Bronze Age holy book is to be purged from your sight and from society.

We WILL sooner or later have marriage equality in this country. I only hope that I live to see it.

@ richard ortiz,

NO! you're, mr. ortiz, twisting everything, so typical for you heterosexists and antigays. I'm only not sucking your hetero asses to get along with you, mr. ortiz! you chose, mr. ortiz, to come here just for kicks, to twist, lie and attack gays just for kicks, abusing the obviously unmoderated policy of this site (which is the only thing that surprised me). 

it's very clear to me, mr. ortiz that you can be worse than bad, I'm aware that you can bash more and worse like you bragged on what you do elsewhere. but if you do that in my face, you're shaking a wrong tree here, a tree that will not give you a free pass (you're so used to have) to do it without consequences. you, felicia tawil, shawn and some other antigays similar to you are very clear provocators who should just be thrown out of here.

Dear Ioan Lightoller, thank you for your kind words and understanding words. I admire your patience and decency with which you handle antigay provocators here. My full support to you, Ioan Lightoller!

I am only disappointed that this supposedly pro-gay and progressive site is allowing everythinhg here, unmoderated. As I said, discussion is fine, but we GLBTIQ people shouldn't be faced nor forced to always explain ourselves to antigay bashers and bullies with whom whole discussion is useless because they resort to intimidations (whether direct or indirect) toward us gays.

Since Change.org is obviously allowing antigay bashing, I am leaving this site and if I wish I can always find more moderated pro-gay progressive sites whre we gay people shouldn't have to put up with stresses of gay bashing and antigay harrassments. I imagine on those more moderated pro-gay progressive sites, discussions could still be possible, but with clear limits against antigay intruders.

'Bye.

Ioan:

You wrote, “Maybe if we allowed marriage for ALL ADULTS who can enter into CONSENTUAL agreements, we would not be having this problem. The problem is the Christianists insisting that their "one man, one woman" model be the only legal sort of marriage.” This is exactly the reason I think the government should get out of the marriage business. As long as the government can define which marriages it will recognize and how other people are to react to those recognized marriages, it will remain a political football. But by privatizing marriage and rescinding its special privileges, then no one can dictate who may or may not get married. Marriage then will become like any other contract between private parties. Then the Christian can have his Christian marriage, the Buddhist his Buddhist marriage, and the homosexual his homosexual marriage, all without infringing on the rights of others.

Tolerance is a two way street. It is not helped by lies said to incite hate, which is the reason I first responded on this list. Tolerance does not mean agreement, rather it means respecting disagreement. Where is the tolerance, when all children attending California public schools are required to be indoctrinated in pro-homosexual propaganda, even those who would prefer not to receive it? Where was the tolerance shown to Elaine and Jon Huguenin who did not want to violate their conscience and be part of a lesbian ceremony? Where was the tolerance for a local Knights of Columbus council in British Columbia, sued in 2005 for following their religion and refusing to rent their hall for a same-sex “wedding” reception? Where was the tolerance shown to a Methodist facility in Ocean Grove, N.J., sued because they were asked to violate their conscience to host a homosexual commitment ceremony? There are many more such incidents of intolerance by homosexual activists. Then there are these “hate crime” laws, many of which are hate crimes in and of themselves, that criminalize beliefs. It’s these acts of intolerance that fuels much of the opposition to “gay rights”.

Tolerance is agreeing to disagree, in the process adopting a live and let live attitude. I call for a privatization of marriage because I believe the state has no right to dictate to me what sort of marriage I may have, knowing full well that such a privatization will automatically legitimize homosexual marriage. Isn’t that what you want? Tolerance?

No, Mr Ortiz, you and your ilk have practiced hatred of, and discrimination against, GLBTQ people for centuries. It is only now, when Christianists and other homophobes see the possibility of same sex marriage being enacted into law and the possibility that their children will not end up as ignorant and bigoted as their predecessors that the cry of "intolerance!" is raised. It is only now, when judges declare that discrimination against the GLBTQ is as odious as discrimination against any other group that the Christianists and other bigots cry "Intolerance!" Persecution!"

I do not believe that those who make a living from marketing skills or merchandise to the public should be allowed to discriminate against that same public...and that includes GLBTQ members of the public. If you offer your services to the general public, then expect to be called on your bigotry if you discriminate. What if a photographer feels he shouldn't have to serve a mixed-race couple by photographing their wedding? After all, there are those who might feel that mixed-race marriages go against their moral principles. They wouldn't discriminate because the mixed-race couple would likely sue--and would win.

GLBTQ is just about the last group against whom discrimination can be carried out without certain legal recourse when the discrimination happens. Luckily judges are seeing through all the religious doubletalk and making it clear that if you want to make your money from the public, you serve ALL the public.

Protections can be written into law making it clear that religious groups do not wish to marry same-sex couples have the right to refuse. Personally, I can't imagine why any self-respecting same-sex couple who would want to marry in a church or synagogue that didn't want to marry them. This way, affirming and open churches can offer legal religious marriages, marriages with all the benefits and benefits offered by the state to those entering into a legal marriage.

Ioan:

“I do not believe that those who make a living from marketing skills or merchandise to the public should be allowed to discriminate against that same public.” Really? So a black should be forced to rent his public space for a meeting of the local KKK? Or a Jew forced to do publicity for the neo-Nazis? So a Christian, whose Bible tells him that homosexuality is a sin, should be forced to violate his conscience to do service in a ceremony he finds morally repugnant?

That, sir, is fascism!

Mr Ortiz, despite the persecution complex that you and others of your ilk mistake for reality, GLBTQ people are nothing like the KKK. We do not advocate the killing of straights or killing them. We do not traash their places of businesses or any of the other things that the KKK does.

If a business wants to do business with the general public it must serve any people who are not a part of a hate group. Despite your persecution mania, GLBTQ people are NOT a hate group. You see demons where there are none.

Ioan:

You wrote, “GLBTQ people are nothing like the KKK. We do not advocate the killing of straights or killing them. We do not traash their places of businesses or any of the other things that the KKK does.”

First of all, the KKK as an organization has been defunct for several years, was a branch of the Democrat Party, hence the last of its former grand wizards in Congress is Senator Byrd, D. W. Va.

I live in San Francisco. Once I watched a “Pride Parade” in which a banner sign stating “Kill all the Christians” was carried. My curiosity sated, I have not watched another one. A church was firebombed one night, if the wind had been blowing a different direction, one of the pastor’s family would have been killed. Another church was invaded and trashed during a Sunday worship service by a homosexual mob. One pastor came to his office one morning to find a bullet hole in his office window, with a rifle bullet buried in the back wall. Recently a group of Christians were escorted by the police to protect them from the violence of a homosexual mob. If a political campaign is considered important by the homosexual community, threats against campaign workers for the other side are common, though I don’t personally know if any were carried out, but vandalism has been. A few times I have observed Brown Shirt tactics used to try to silence those who disapprove of homosexuality. These are just a few actions that I personally know about from within town.

Today homosexual activists are major players in the political machine that rules this city, whatever they want they get, so that mob trashing of buildings and burning of cars is not as common as in the past.

I am not a news hound, but occasionally I hear of similar actions in other cities.

If a homosexual get killed by a bisexual in a robbery, it is trumpeted far and wide as a hate crime. If a straight accidentally kills a homosexual while fighting off a homosexual rape, he gets life in prison. So much for truth and justice.

This is reality.

Yes I have heard of violence by straights against homosexuals, once myself threatened by a group who mistook me for a gay, but every case I know of, the perpetrator was not a Christian.

So the GLBTQ is not a hate group? With lies being told online such as above to incite hate? With the above record, what am I to think?

You wrote, “If a business wants to do business with the general public it must serve any people who are not a part of a hate group.” So a restaurant that has a policy of “No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service” must serve a naked man who walks through the door? So a homosexual could have been forced to work for the “Yes on 8” campaign in CA last year, or in the recent one in Maine? So why do you want to force someone who for religious reasons (part of the Constitutional First Amendment) disapproves of homosexuality, to violate his religion to participate in a specifically homosexual activity? Why should that not be considered an act of hate?

Tolerance is a two way street. As long as the homosexual community intolerantly keeps demanding approval without allowing that some groups have good reasons to disapprove of homosexuality without being either hateful or fearful, does it deserve tolerance in return?

Mitch, and others who are commenting on this story regards Pastor Joel Osteen. I have always found it interesting that in the Four Gospels there is no mention of either homosexuality, lesbian contacts or for that matter anything of a sexual nature that Jesus is quoted to be speaking about during his years of Public Ministry. The Old Testament and some of Paul's writings discuss the "sin" of homosexuality and perhaps Pastor Joel is reacting to these verses. I cannot judge what is in Pastor Joel's heart, nor can I understand how Paster Joel "knows" what is in God's mind regards folks who are GLBT creations of God.

I agree.

And because it's not there, I make no mention of the Gospels.

As I pointed out, the prohibition comes from Leviticus. And that the particular prohibition is only on sexual insertion of another male. For what it's worth, Leviticus also prohibits the same thing with an animal, a sister, mother, an aunt, niece, half sister, and possibly a few other relatives.

In one of the later writings of the bible it also mentions that king David had a relationship with Jonathan where the emotional connection was "more than the love of a man for a woman".

This is not a contradiction if, and only if, a strong emotional connection is permitted as long as it is without sexual penetration.

Hence the point that the only prohibition is in Leviticus, and therein only to penetration. Therefore within this system, the pastoral claim is that the objection is only to the "sinful" act of penetration.

To my knowledge an objection or a prohibition to a single narrowly defined act is not a phobia. And the claim by homophiles that this single objection is somehow a homophobia, is disingenuous at best. If there is a phobia here it would appear that it now sits with the homophile group.

I have a bit of personal experience in this matter, since most Christians would label me a "sinner" and that i will be barred from entrance into heaven.

My advice, since you are not going to change it, if you don't like their system... leave.

So long as it does not translate into an illegal act, why should i care what other people think?

Mitch, I said homophobic fear is based on irrational thought and hatred. I never said that you were fearful. But I do think that people who condemn homosexuality are wrong and irrational, and because of this, some will persecute homosexuals out of hatred and fear (hence, the term 'homophobia' which explains this type of negative behavior. I should have been more clear.

I stand by my statement that you are preaching, because you said, in reference to Pastor Osteen saying loving the sinner and hating the sin,  that it is

"...Not too different from what they do with respect to adultery, theft, violation of the sabbath, or anything else they would consider a sin."

This tells me you agree with him. I tell you this is "preaching" because it is based on your religious beliefs.

I read your post and as I understand it, you seem to believe that homosexuality is more about the sexual act than about the person's humanity. Nothing is further from the truth. You said:

"Within christianity sexual behavior is separated from the rest of human behavior as being more animalistic than human." You see, this is what is wrong with interpreting Christianity this way, because sexuality has everything to do with being human. It is a part of who we are -the physical being;  our body, our mind, our spirit, the entire fabric of our identity is complete and interwoven.

This is to say to you that our humanness is in no way a sin, regardless of who we love and who we have sex with.

Read my other comments, and you'll get a better idea of what I believe.

First i think you need to learn how to read.

Nowhere in my post did i even suggest that you said i was fearful.

Yes, the definition of homophobia is an irrational fear of a homosexual.

However, how is the objection to only the act of inserting the male sex organ into the body of another male a irrational fear? You may not agree with the objection. That's fair. But, just because you don't agree with it does not make it irrational nor fear.

No i was not preaching, i was point out Osteen's line of reasoning. Hence the phrase "from what they do".

And contrary to your claim that "this tells me you agree", by saying "what they do" i'm explicitly not agreeing nor disagreeing. I'm just pointing out what your own prejudice refuses to allow you to understand.

Furthermore, you don't know the religion to which i adhere nor even if i adhere to one at all. So how can you claim anything is based on *my* religious beliefs.

It is because you read my post with your own prejudice that you think that i believe homosexuality is only the sexual act. Contrarily, i have repeatedly stated that it is only the sex act to which Leviticus objects (which surely implies there are other unobjectionable components) and stated nothing about my own personal views.

Interpreting Christianity? Are you kidding?

This is the problem. Christianity is not open for your personal interpretation. Either you agree with an existing branch and join in, or you opt out. The latter being a viable choice since this is not Saudi Arabia, nor 15th century Spain, or 16th or 17th century England, etc.

According to Christianity, your humanness IS a sin, that is why you need faith in Christ or Grace to erase that original sinfulness. And if you don't agree with this (WHICH I DON'T) then you opt out. It's just too basic to the belief system.

Your final sentence is very telling. You want others to be tolerant of your views, while at the same time you refuse to tolerate an opposing view as anything other than irrational.

Face it. You're an intolerant hypocrite.

Well the question is does the wisdom of sheep herding primitives who wrote a book 1562 years ago who believed every special of animal was within walking distance of Noah's house, trump that of of modern science?...

I think the answer to that question is quite simple.

It is irrational to use fiction(religion) to base arguments on. This is known as the appeal to belief fallacy. A logical fallacy by the way, is caused by irrationality.

If christianity all believed the same about homosexuality then why are many small churches disagreeing with each other on this issue? Why are Episcopals open while baptist are not to the idea of accepting gay people as normal and not "sinful?" If all chrsitians had the same beliefs and there was no deviation amongst them then why is there so many denominations, that more often than none, despise each other as much as the Kurds VS. the Shiites?

Also why should rational minded people, and scientist, as well as religious scholars be respectful and tolerant towards bigotry? Should we be respectful towards racism and sexism as well? The bible is very clear in Ephesians and Luke(both new testament) that slaves must be obedient to their masters with fear and trembling as unto Christ. As well as, "you shall inherit the people of your neighboring lands and do unto them as you please, you shall be their masters, except your brothers of Israel."

Should we respect those passages and the people who believe them to be truth, as they use them to enforce racism onto the masses? NO! We should call them racist and condemn those who are so pathetic that they have to hide behind their theology to justify their bigotry. This is no different. People now interpret the bible to see women as "having a right to vote," and as african americans to be "integrated into society as equal human beings."

The same will happen and is happening now with gay people. People are starting to reevaluate their religious text. However... it would be far better if we abolished the public discourse of religion all together and make that into a private practise and only a private practice as it should be and is written and established by the first amendment of the constitution.

By now it is clear that you and I think pretty much alike, Chris. I especially relate to this post of yours. I admire you for sticking to your basic attitude dismissing all religious arguments as bunk.

I am sure there are many others who feel the same and would do the same but for fear of being seen as impertinent, impolite or disrespectful of religion. For me, I plainly do NOT respect religion in the least and I do not see why we, as a people, go so far out of our way to pretend that we do even when we don't.

People of different religions don't really respect each other's religious points of view. If they did then why would they be huddled off into separate faiths? They all think that everyone else is wrong and will all be going to hell or some such nonsense.

In this country we can outright disrespect someone for their politics - look at how the insane Rightwingnuts talk about Obama and look how the Repugnicans condemn Democrats as fascists and get away with it! We can disrespect each other for their sexual orientation when it's different from ours (tho it's always done on religious grounds). We can cut each other down for all sorts of things but when it comes to religion - that is somehow supposed to be exempt: A line we dare not cross.

Bullshit! I say. There is nothing about religion that is different than any other political or philosophical point of view. We can vilify Nazism - which is truly despicable - but if we say a bad word about Islam or Catholicism we are supposedly crossing some kind of line. Fuck that taboo.

When religiosos enter a political discussion and we make it clear that their religion is irrelevant to the topic, a waste of time and counter-productive, we are accused of "bashing" - a term they stole from gay people who have been continually victimized by physical assaults and murders in the name of the lord (fuck the churchies for stealing this term and turning it into a whiny cry to use when they cannot justify their bigotry). Even when we make it clear that the reasons we are condemning of religion is because of the horrible, murderous, genocidal effects it's had on the world. Christians will come back with talking about the supposed "good" that their religion has done. And indeed there are some good things sprinkled in with the millennia of atrocities.

But then again, even in his short reign of terror, Hitler is credited with making the trains run on time!

I agree with you (mostly) Bill.

DO NO HARM. (That is my belief system)

Simple. Covers everything. People or animals. You do not need a religion or a Bible or anyone to tell you this. We, as humans have the right to our own thoughts. Very simple. Living in a life of fear and hatred of anything that is different is weak.

It's not about being gay or religious or rich or poor. We are snowflakes. No two are alike. It's so simple. There's just so much hate, but it's not about hate towards gays or Christians. It's hatred towards the fear of anyone or anything that is different from your sense of "normal" or how you were "brought up". Not being able to think for yourself.

Everyone is discriminated for their differences. If you have different color skin, eyes, hair, language, religion, beliefs, short or tall, thin or not, age, nationality, one leg or two...everyone is looked at differently or not equal to whatever is considered normal to someone else. It's all in your perception.

The Bible fits everyone or no one, depending on your translation or perception. It's a book. You get out of it what you want, depending on your own set of values or morals. If it doesn't work for you...you find something that does. There are many versions to choose from.

If you don't believe in homosexuality...don't marry a gay person. If you don't believe in God...don't go to church. I don't believe in harming so I became vegan. Act on your own values and beliefs.

Non-acceptance is why I dropped out of an organized religion. I never quite fit in. I treat everyone equally...unless they harm. That includes all sentient beings. Once you harm someone or something else. Deal breaker. I'm out. One law. One belief. Covers everything. Emotional or physical harm. Both apply.

DO NO HARM.

The Dalai Lama says that his religion is "kindness". I think he makes a good point.

Don't you fundies have some women found in adultery to stone? Uh-oh, wait. Don't forget to watch out for that pesky writing in the sand.

Burton, these bigots don't care about Christian ministers/churches who are willing to marry us. Didn't you know that we already HAVE full rights? We're perfectly free to marry anyone of the opposite sex. I kid you not--these idiots really do spew garbage like this.

You know, if you don't like what we are saying,  then go find some fundie board to go carry on at. You don't have to have your delicate sensibilites assaulted. You CHOOSE to be on here. See? It's just a choice. You can CHOOSE to click on the "x" in the upper right hand of the window. If you feel threatened, simply CHOOSE to leave.

"Thousands of churches and ordained clergy are being denied the free exercise of their religion in violation of their first amendment right."

Wait a minute. So, now you're saying that Congress must recognize what goes on within the walls of churches? But just the liberal churches you want them to recognize, right?

That is some twisted logic Burton. Liberal churches can conduct any type of ceremony they want within their four walls: gay marriages, poly-amorous marriages, whatever, and their 1st Amendment right is not being restricted in any way if the Government ignores these ceremonies.

In fact, I think that is the whole point of the 1st Amendment.

Shawn, the DIFFERENCE is that Christianist churches can marry opposite-sex couples LEGALLY Because of the insane determination of the bigots, GLBTQ-friendly, open and affirming churches can marry same-sex couples, but the marriages are not legal. There is the difference.

Leslie sexual orientation is not a choice. Please read this from the APA to understand. Thank you.

http://www.apahelpcenter.org/articles/article.php?id=31

"The first step towards tolerance and acceptance is education." - Albert Einstein.

I applaud your response thank you.

Tedd and all,

Just as we as gay people do not want to be stereotyped, we should avoid doing the same. I have found that generalizations are always wrong.

As a gay Christian minister, I can tell you that many, many Christians work tirelessly on "other issues like homelesness or wars and killing or orphans and starving children."

And many Christians are working to end discrimination in all forms, including against gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people.

I hope and pray you all have a blessing Thanksgiving holiday!